The Isolated Blurt Thread: I Learned The Truth at XVII

[Sean]

In this country we legislated against guns. Our gun death rate is insignificant compared with yours.

That has made an actual, tangible difference in the most basic way. There are, undoubtedly, people alive in Britain today who would have been dead had our gun laws remained as they were pre-Hungerford and pre-Dunblane.

If you are drafting an amendment against hate, Eyer, all the very best to you. But it will not save a single human soul.

Not only gun deaths, the American murder rate for all causes is four times what the UK rate is.

 

[yossi]

I was planning on a walk, but it's looking like rain. Grrrrrrr...

We got dumped on starting late last night/early this morning but no precipitation in the past few hours even though the sun hasn't quite come out. Is it still warm where you are? Sometimes I like rain walks when it's hot - makes the temp more bearable.

 

[DesEsseintes]

Not only gun deaths, the American murder rate for all causes is four times what the UK rate is.

I didn't know that, Sean, thank you.

What a lot of hate there must be there, since that is the sole cause. On Eyer's logic, the US must be at least four times as hateful as the UK. Who would have thought our spiteful, mean little island could be so trounced in the misanthropy stakes?

 

[eyer]

I am aware of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. I agree the Second Amendment clearly gives citizens the right to bear arms. The Sumpremes have also repeatedly upheld that right.

You're hardly "aware" at all...

...the framers held that inalienable rights - natural rights - are endowed by the Creator and, thus, could not be "give"n by any government.

The Constitution was penned to specifically grant government the very limited, but omnipotent powers it has and to prohibit it from all other issues it doesn't specifically grant it authority in.

The Constitution grants government no say whatsoever about Americans' God-given right to keep and bear arms - that was intentional...

...and the 2nd was precisely written and ratified to make even more clear that government is expressly prohibited from infringing upon that God-given right.

In America, the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable...

...and any government that aims to infringe upon that is exactly the flavor of "such Government" Jefferson meant when he declared of Americans: "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."

 

[NHKitty]

We got dumped on starting late last night/early this morning but no precipitation in the past few hours even though the sun hasn't quite come out. Is it still warm where you are? Sometimes I like rain walks when it's hot - makes the temp more bearable.

It's pretty warm today, we'll see how it is when I leave work...it looks like it could be muggy. I took a quick walk at lunch and it was beautiful, although the view is nothing like what you posted.

 

[DesEsseintes]

You're hardly "aware" at all...

...the framers held that inalienable rights - natural rights - are endowed by the Creator and, thus, could not be "give"n by any government.

The Constitution was penned to specifically grant government the very limited, but omnipotent powers it has and to prohibit it from all other issues it doesn't specifically grant it authority in.

The Constitution grants government no say whatsoever about Americans' God-given right to keep and bear arms - that was intentional...

...and the 2nd was precisely written and ratified to make even more clear that government is expressly prohibited from infringing upon that God-given right.

In America, the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable...

...and any government that aims to infringe upon that is exactly the flavor of "such Government" Jefferson meant when he declared of Americans: "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government."

A genuine question. Is constitutional purity worth an infinite number of lives? I mean, I am sure you do not think the case is remotely proven on guns - but if it were? If someone could prove to your own satisfaction that strict legislation on guns, even as a medium term emergency measure, would save hundreds or thousands of lives, would you accept it at the cost of your constitution? Or would it be, I don't know, morally repugnant, or a slippery slope, or similar?

 

[eyer]

I didn't know that, Sean, thank you.

What a lot of hate there must be there, since that is the sole cause. On Eyer's logic, the US must be at least four times as hateful as the UK. Who would have thought our spiteful, mean little island could be so trounced in the misanthropy stakes?

America's population is 5x that of your little island...

...how's that apply to you so childishly grasping seaniepoo's irrelevant 4x rate?

And America is many times the very worst in the world at negative things, and the very best in the world at great things...

...why should hate fare any different?

The very reason your royalty no longer sit as figureheads over this great land, their former subject colony...

...is precisely because Americans would not relinquish their natural right to keep and bear arms, and then they extended that by kicking your statist limey asses out of here.

Guess what'll happen to the next government that also goes too far in that regard?

 

[DesEsseintes]

America's population is 5x that of your little island...

...how's that apply to you so childishly grasping seaniepoo's irrelevant 4x rate?

And America is many times the very worst in the world at negative things, and the very best in the world at great things...

...why should hate fare any different?

The very reason your royalty no longer sit as figureheads over this great land, their former subject colony...

...is precisely because Americans would not relinquish their natural right to keep and bear arms, and then they extended that by kicking your statist limey asses out of here.

Guess what'll happen to the next government that also goes too far in that regard?

The rate is per person.

And I would venture to suggest that both Bush and Obama seem pretty statist to me, yet nothing has happened. Perhaps there aren't quite as many armed constitutional purists as you would like.

 

[Not Normal]

I didn't know that, Sean, thank you.

What a lot of hate there must be there, since that is the sole cause. On Eyer's logic, the US must be at least four times as hateful as the UK. Who would have thought our spiteful, mean little island could be so trounced in the misanthropy stakes?

We have a lot more space for housing the hateful and spiteful. It s numbers game.

America's population is 5x that of your little island...

...how's that apply to you so childishly grasping seaniepoo's irrelevant 4x rate?

And America is many times the very worst in the world at negative things, and the very best in the world at great things...

...why should hate fare any different?

The very reason your royalty no longer sit as figureheads over this great land, their former subject colony...

...is precisely because Americans would not relinquish their natural right to keep and bear arms, and then they extended that by kicking your statist limey asses out of here.

Guess what'll happen to the next government that also goes too far in that regard?

Do you really think owning guns is when the Colonies wanted to be independent of the Brits?

 

[Not Normal]

The stats are out there, but telling a bull-headed American that gun ownership should be limited is like telling Winnie the Pooh he shouldn't have honey. You can talk 'till you're blue in the face, but it ain't gonna change.

 

[eyer]

A genuine question. Is constitutional purity worth an infinite number of lives? I mean, I am sure you do not think the case is remotely proven on guns - but if it were? If someone could prove to your own satisfaction that strict legislation on guns, even as a medium term emergency measure, would save hundreds or thousands of lives, would you accept it at the cost of your constitution? Or would it be, I don't know, morally repugnant, or a slippery slope, or similar?

Why do you ask such disingenuous questions...

...when your acclaim for socialism is so renown?

What is it that you don't understand about the word, "inalienable"?

Never mind...

...you believe yourself is the only God, thus, you and whatever majority (best case) can be mustered are the authorities on deciding what rights men have and which they don't.

[Thanks to your great nation again, you limey piece of socialist shit...

...for doing just that and eternally infecting us with the intolerable disease of slavery.]

 

[DesEsseintes]

Why do you ask such disingenuous questions...

...when your acclaim for socialism is so renown?

What is it that you don't understand about the word, "inalienable"?

Never mind...

...you believe yourself is the only God, thus, you and whatever majority (best case) can be mustered are the authorities on deciding what rights men have and which they don't.

[Thanks to your great nation again, you limey piece of socialist shit...

...for doing just that and eternally infecting us with the intolerable disease of slavery.]

I believe each of us is the master of his own fate, yes, and not God. God, as we see every day in the Middle East, is a very convenient flag to cover up one's own cruelties.

And surely you understand that the Constitution was framed as it was for sound social and political reasons given the situation at the time? You seem to have the reverent attitude towards it that some fundamentalist Muslims have towards the Koran.

And on the slavery front, I seem to remember that Britain abolished it first, and that plenty of people in America seemed to feel rather strongly that it should be kept.

I note you are avoiding the question. Let me try to rephrase it.

Can you conceive of a situation which would require amending the Constitution? If so, what would it be, and how would it justify such an amendment?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I believe each of us is the master of his own fate, yes, and not God. God, as we see every day in the Middle East, is a very convenient flag to cover up one's own cruelties.

And surely you understand that the Constitution was framed as it was for sound social and political reasons given the situation at the time? You seem to have the reverent attitude towards it that some fundamentalist Muslims have towards the Koran.

And on the slavery front, I seem to remember that Britain abolished it first, and that plenty of people in America seemed to feel rather strongly that it should be kept.

I note you are avoiding the question. Let me try to rephrase it.

Can you conceive of a situation which would require amending the Constitution? If so, what would it be, and how would it justify such an amendment?

Eyer knows the words in the Constitution, he just doesn't understand their meaning. Engaging him in this discussion is just going to get you called names.

 

[DesEsseintes]

Eyer knows the words in the Constitution, he just doesn't understand their meaning. Engaging him in this discussion is just going to get you called names.

I cannot help having a certain respect for Eyer. He shows consistency, at least.

But perhaps you are right. I wanted to try, that's all. Sorry to disturb, everyone. Feel free to put those little cones around the discussion.

 

[eyer]

Do you really think owning guns is when the Colonies wanted to be independent of the Brits?

"when"?

Is there any other reason but the obvious one why you needed to inject your irrelevancy there?

Do you actually fantasize that without Americans upholding their inalienable right to keep and bear arms, and then to so revolutionarily employing them...

...Independence would've ever came?

The stats are out there, but telling a bull-headed American that gun ownership should be limited is like telling Winnie the Pooh he shouldn't have honey. You can talk 'till you're blue in the face, but it ain't gonna change.

When the 2nd purposely and intentionally commands government (and thus, all others) that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

...you simply regard it as debatable as when the 1st dictates that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Got ya.

You want to "change" it?

Fine: your only constitutional option is to introduce a 28th Amendment doing so...

...wtf is so difficult to understand about that?

And why aren't any of you anti-Constitution bozos championing that only legal option...

...instead of continuing to do everything you can imagine to illegally end run the Second Amendment - the Law of the Land?

 

[Bacigalupo]

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/11535664_10153400436184914_1943878884534817514_n.jpg?oh=8a3d3eeac931487990ec9808463bc7bb&oe=55E8DF19

 

[Brollyanna]

Eyer reminds me of Pennsatucky from Orange, for some reason.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/11uxVndufubmco/200_s.gif

 

[eyer]

Eyer knows the words in the Constitution, he just doesn't understand their meaning.

Anytime you feel up to floating your "understanding" of the Constitution...

...feel free to actually jump in, wannabe.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Sad as it seems, there are a few people on this board that don't see these 9 people dying as a tragedy, but as a opportunity to "get the guns".

Sick fucks

 

[Sean]

America's population is 5x that of your little island...

...how's that apply to you so childishly grasping seaniepoo's irrelevant 4x rate?

And America is many times the very worst in the world at negative things, and the very best in the world at great things...

...why should hate fare any different?

The very reason your royalty no longer sit as figureheads over this great land, their former subject colony...

...is precisely because Americans would not relinquish their natural right to keep and bear arms, and then they extended that by kicking your statist limey asses out of here.

Guess what'll happen to the next government that also goes too far in that regard?

That's a per capita rate, retard. That's why it's a "rate".

 

[Wings]

Jesus. So many people on this train. My knees are sweating. Ugh. Twins fans.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Jesus. So many people on this train. My knees are sweating. Ugh. Twins fans.

Is it a lot of work to pull?

 

[Wings]

Is it a lot of work to pull?

So what you're saying is it's not sweat?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I really couldn't say as I have no experience with pulling a train.

 

[Wings]

Sure you don't