You are seriously arguing that the corruption in our police system means there is no protection? This is objectively false.
I would trust an officer over Ultragagginggunnut any day of the week.
The only prisoners are our school children who have to drill for gun violence in their school. Kids who live in fear that their classmates will kill them because they brought another gun nutters unsecured gun to school.
The prisoners are the wives and partners of every abusive gun owner. Scared to leave because they know that it could cost their lives. You ever been raped at gun point? Yeah, didn’t think so.
The prisoners are our society that has to deal with the commercialization of gun ownership and the radicalization of the NRA. Everyday they make our society more unsafe in the name of profits.
The problem isn’t guns, it is people like you that think they solve problems. Guns create problems not solve them.
They need to be tightly controlled to keep them away from people who are mentally unwell. People that think they are the “prisoners” fantasizing about defending their rights and overthrowing the government.
Certainly. Thank you for your patience, and for the opportunity for discussion.
I respectfully and summarily reject the underlying premise of what you were saying. Your comment did not consider that you are the person best capable of providing your own “protection”.
I submit that the regulatory environment needs to recognize and respect that fact.
What are you waiting for? I have responded twice before this comment. Your comment is premised on a false dichotomy. When we eliminate that premise, the remainder of your comment doesn’t make much sense.
One route forward: You could support your position on a different premise. Another route: You could abandon your previous position and adopt a new one. I eagerly await your choice.
Nice try, let me turn on my Rivalarrival translator: Ah yes, it is coming in clear now. You did not like what I said but you have no rebuttal so you hyper focused on one thing. You invented a false premise and remembered to project that like any good bullshitter.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but none of what you’re saying in any way addresses my point: your argument is fundamentally based on the aforementioned false dichotomy. You are the most reliable protector of you. Nobody has a greater motivation to protect you than you. Regulation should recognize that fact.
I understand it may seem like I am “hyper focused” on this rebuttal to your argument, but that is only because you have asked for further response, without actually addressing my initial argument. You’ve presented no new arguments for me to consider.
You are seriously arguing that the corruption in our police system means there is no protection? This is objectively false.
I would trust an officer over Ultragagginggunnut any day of the week.
The only prisoners are our school children who have to drill for gun violence in their school. Kids who live in fear that their classmates will kill them because they brought another gun nutters unsecured gun to school.
The prisoners are the wives and partners of every abusive gun owner. Scared to leave because they know that it could cost their lives. You ever been raped at gun point? Yeah, didn’t think so.
The prisoners are our society that has to deal with the commercialization of gun ownership and the radicalization of the NRA. Everyday they make our society more unsafe in the name of profits.
The problem isn’t guns, it is people like you that think they solve problems. Guns create problems not solve them.
They need to be tightly controlled to keep them away from people who are mentally unwell. People that think they are the “prisoners” fantasizing about defending their rights and overthrowing the government.
False dichotomy. Those aren’t the only choices.
In your entire comment, you failed to realize that “Doomsider” is a perfectly viable option.
With “Doomsider” being an option for you, “officer” should be considered a distant second.
When you actually want to respond to what I said I will be waiting.
Certainly. Thank you for your patience, and for the opportunity for discussion.
I respectfully and summarily reject the underlying premise of what you were saying. Your comment did not consider that you are the person best capable of providing your own “protection”.
I submit that the regulatory environment needs to recognize and respect that fact.
Still waiting
What are you waiting for? I have responded twice before this comment. Your comment is premised on a false dichotomy. When we eliminate that premise, the remainder of your comment doesn’t make much sense.
One route forward: You could support your position on a different premise. Another route: You could abandon your previous position and adopt a new one. I eagerly await your choice.
Nice try, let me turn on my Rivalarrival translator: Ah yes, it is coming in clear now. You did not like what I said but you have no rebuttal so you hyper focused on one thing. You invented a false premise and remembered to project that like any good bullshitter.
Still waiting.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but none of what you’re saying in any way addresses my point: your argument is fundamentally based on the aforementioned false dichotomy. You are the most reliable protector of you. Nobody has a greater motivation to protect you than you. Regulation should recognize that fact.
I understand it may seem like I am “hyper focused” on this rebuttal to your argument, but that is only because you have asked for further response, without actually addressing my initial argument. You’ve presented no new arguments for me to consider.
Most reliable protector? What kind of word salad AI bullshit are you trying to feed me.
Still waiting.