CC at Mt Rushmore

[solv3nt]

Either you misread my statements 'cuz your "watching a different movie" than I am, or you're subtly attempting to twist the argument into a false dichotomy.

Firstly, I'm not lecturing you, I'm simply telling you that you're being dumb.

Fixed it.

 

[Stomper]

Fixed it.

You be a little sheite-stirrin' insta-gatoré, ain't ya?

 

[solv3nt]

You be a little sheite-stirrin' insta-gatoré, ain't ya?

Meh, I've got Shrek blocked, he can't see it

 

[Stomper]

Meh, I've got Shrek blocked, he can't see it

He prolly pulled out some ear-wax, lit it into a candle and is having a bubblebath to sooth away the beating he just got….

 

[solv3nt]

He prolly pulled out some ear-wax, lit it into a candle and is having a bubblebath to sooth away the beating he just got….

I enjoy derailing the threads that are getting trolled though.

 

[Cavedweller]

And that example is akin to saying you can't teach physics without everyone wearing high heal shoes.

Obviously you've never been to drag queen physics hour.

 

[solv3nt]

Obviously you've never been to drag queen physics hour.

Can't say the I have...

 

[Tony617]

We went to Mount Rushmore and The Crazy Horse Memorial back over Labor Day weekend in 2008. My camera was a Nikon D80 and I used a polarized filter.

 

[Cavedweller]

Can't say the I have...

I heard about it from a friend.

 

[RX-79G]

Firstly, I'm not lecturing you, I'm telling you your being dumb. I never said anything about it being unacceptable to go anywhere without a weapon, it's unacceptable to compel other people to bend to your fears.

Not so long ago you couldn't conceal a gun almost anywhere. Then you could do it lot's of places - but not every place. Now there is a push to allow it everywhere. The "compelling' is being done by those pushing for carry in more places - not those suggesting it isn't always appropriate.

Secondly, implying (in the above context) that one is "scared" because they carry a gun is a fallacy and intellectually dishonest and indicates your arguments are weak. Am I supposed to say, "oh yeah? I'll show you I'm not scared and won't carry a gun!" ? Your not conversing with a 10 year old.

I didn't suggest anyone was afraid - you did. But since you brought it up...



The difference between prudence and fear is whether the thing you are concerned about is likely or not. A bunch of adults lamenting the "danger" they might be in because they are unarmed while outdoors in South Dakota has to take the cake for the opposite of being prudent.

 

[Stomper]

Not so long ago you couldn't conceal a gun almost anywhere. Then you could do it lot's of places - but not every place. Now there is a push to allow it everywhere. The "compelling' is being done by those pushing for carry in more places - not those suggesting it isn't always appropriate.


I didn't suggest anyone was afraid - you did. But since you brought it up...



The difference between prudence and fear is whether the thing you are concerned about is likely or not. A bunch of adults lamenting the "danger" they might be in because they are unarmed while outdoors in South Dakota has to take the cake for the opposite of being prudent.

1.
Infringement was wrong then as it is wrong now.

2.
Reclaiming and asserting your rights is no moral sin, and deciding whether something is "appropriate" is as subjective as deciding what dress tie is so ugly that it should only be used to hang yourself, or which one warrants a $500 price tag.

Bottom line: If you don't like my tie, tough sheite.

4.
One only has to look to California and New York (for starters) to see who's doing the "compelling".

5.
I reject your false dichotomy between "prudence and fear". I drive hundreds of thousands of miles every year, year round, on highways, secondary roads, and sometimes literal goat paths and have never gotten a flat tire, but I still carry a spare tire AND a patch kit just in case because THAT'S prudent.

6.
Just because YOU think something isn't necessary, doesn't make it so, and BTW your mockery tactic is of none effect. I've read (and practice) Rules for Radicals, too.

 

[Stomper]

 

[Jay Walk]

The fed has been banning fireworks at Rushmore since 2010.

Hmmm... you must have slept through the Trump Presidency.

 

[Stomper]

Hmmm... you must have slept through the Trump Presidency.

Prolly been that way since kindergarten….

 

[RX-79G]

I reject your false dichotomy between "prudence and fear". I drive hundreds of thousands of miles every year, year round, on highways, secondary roads, and sometimes literal goat paths and have never gotten a flat tire, but I still carry a spare tire AND a patch kit just in case because THAT'S prudent.

There is no comparison between having a spare tire - which has no downsides, aside from taking up trunk space - and letting drunk idiots take dangerous stuff into crowded public places where fights are common.

Hmmm... you must have slept through the Trump Presidency.

Nope. I was pointing out that the prohibition on fireworks had nothing to do with Biden, except that he allowed the government agency that knows best how to preserve a national monument to go back to doing its job after a President that did whatever he wanted overrode the Park Service.

 

[Stomper]

There is no comparison between having a spare tire - which has no downsides, aside from taking up trunk space - and letting drunk idiots take dangerous stuff into crowded public places where fights are common.


Nope. I was pointing out that the prohibition on fireworks had nothing to do with Biden, except that he allowed the government agency that knows best how to preserve a national monument to go back to doing its job after a President that did whatever he wanted overrode the Park Service.

I'm addressing your former comments, and I further contend that drunk drivers cause an infinitesimal amount more of death, destruction, and overall detriment to society than a random drunken blow-hard in a bar arguing with another drunken mental "giant".

There's already laws against unjustifiably killing or assaulting another person, and the root cause of your preferred argument is the consumption of alcohol not the presence of firearms.

If your argument is intellectually honest, then you'd be for the banning of alcoholic beverages and places that serve them because of the few who cannot control themselves.

After all, t's not an SPECIFICALLY enumerated constitutional right, unlike the 2A right to keep and BEAR arms.

A major flaw in "progressive" logic is a failure of understanding human nature, they just think making "rules" relegating everything down to the lowest common denominator will make everything peachy.

 

[MTpockets]

making "rules" relegating everything down to the lowest common denominator will make everything peachy.

Bubble Wrap Hat Regulatory Theorists

 

[RX-79G]

I'm addressing your former comments, and I further contend that drunk drivers cause an infinitesimal amount more of death, destruction, and overall detriment to society than a random drunken blow-hard in a bar arguing with another drunken mental "giant".

There's already laws against unjustifiably killing or assaulting another person, and the root cause of your preferred argument is the consumption of alcohol not the presence of firearms.

If your argument is intellectually honest, then you'd be for the banning of alcoholic beverages and places that serve them because of the few who cannot control themselves.

After all, t's not an SPECIFICALLY enumerated constitutional right, unlike the 2A right to keep and BEAR arms.

A major flaw in "progressive" logic is a failure of understanding human nature, they just think making "rules" relegating everything down to the lowest common denominator will make everything peachy.

Heller says the enumerated right is subject to regulation.

You don't have to ban alcohol because two idiots might have a fist fight. You might want to ban guns from where idiots tend to fist fight so it doesn't turn into a gun fight with no safe backstop.

You also don't need to ban cars because a tiny fraction of their use is criminal. But you might regulate their use via road design, speed limits and active enforcement to mitigate criminal misuse of cars. And you might do the same with any other legally owned item that has a tendency to be misused under certain circumstances.

 

[Koda]

You also don't need to ban cars because a tiny fraction of their use is criminal. But you might regulate their use via road design, speed limits and active enforcement to mitigate criminal misuse of cars. And you might do the same with any other legally owned item that has a tendency to be misused under certain circumstances.

wait, wut? Drunk drivers kill thousands more people annually than guns but cars are a tiny fraction of crime use?

Is there ever a point in your discussions where you stop, sit back and think.... maybe my opinion isnt exactly the right one?

 

[Stomper]

Heller says the enumerated right is subject to regulation.

You don't have to ban alcohol because two idiots might have a fist fight. You might want to ban guns from where idiots tend to fist fight so it doesn't turn into a gun fight with no safe backstop.

You also don't need to ban cars because a tiny fraction of their use is criminal. But you might regulate their use via road design, speed limits and active enforcement to mitigate criminal misuse of cars. And you might do the same with any other legally owned item that has a tendency to be misused under certain circumstances.

Heller mentioned regulation of use, the few historical places; courthouses, legislature buildings, and schools (pertaining to students, not teachers), and "dangerous AND unusual" weapons.