How far is too far for Paladin?

What would Trump or his admin have to do for you to turn on them?

I mean, they've given you your lock on the SC, for reasons you still haven't explained you actually need, because the Dems have nothing in mind so heinous it can't be opposed through lesser means (if it even needs opposing, ffs).

Where's the line? He's about to condemn a shitload of LBGTQ rights and the SMART II treaty to the scrapheap, but maybe you're OK with that?

At what point are you not OK with this shit?

Because I used to think you had some principles, y'know?

Some, not many.

But you'd have been the German soldier fighting for pride in his Fatherland, not the guy gassing the Jews.

Lately, though?

When do you call a halt on this shit? When is your 401k and your 2nd Amendment crap not worth the lives of other US citizens?

Ever? Or is there a line you won't cross?

Are we centimeters off that line, or kilometers?

Or light years?

I'm thinking there'll always be mental and verbal gymnastics which justify never having to challenge the convenient. The 2nd has long been about lending some measure of moral authority to a fantasy, a justification for weighing fun against lives fun rather than a real commitment to the stated ideals.

Never will a government be tyrannical, never will anything meet the criteria for actually making good on all the claims.

It seems from his posts on various matters that @Paladin is awaiting something that inconveniences him personally. It's the same on the climate change issue.

I wonder if even there it would lead to motivation, at least at first.

I do suspect the only freedom really protected by the 2nd is the 2nd.

not defending Paladin (he's a big boy) but how far is too far for Matthunter when it comes to fretting over guns in any way, shape or form especially since he lives on the other side of the pond?

There are people who lean left here on wordforge (no shit?) who own guns and are thus exercising their 2nd rights - do you lump them in with Paladin or do they get a pass? So my point is do you really give a shit about gun control or is it one more way to decry conservatives?

Please respond with something witty sounding while you show your ass to those who see through your smug bullshit.

Why would someone living in a nation where the theory has been tested wish to decry those who still promote the idea for their own ends?

Any leftist gun owners here NOT in favor on common sense gun controls? Sound off.

This. I've addressed him directly on it in the past, and his answers have been consistent with this. He simply does not give a shit what happens to other people unless it affects him personally. People next door could be dying from sickness, going hungry, ICE agents grabbing their kids, and as long as they don't step onto Paladin's grass, he could give two shits. It's a society of one.

Another day of TDS...

PDS, fucker.

Trump is deranged. You fuckers supporting him ain't, or weren't.

So, true colors? Or are you off your tits on meth?

"common sense" is whatever the left want it to be. Sound off indeed.

So can a person support Trump in some areas but not others? Or is gun control all your binary brain can handle?

There's far more than two reasons not to support him.

But if you're only focused on guns I figure I might as well mention 'em. You aren't gonna be the one noticing the cyanide gas when I ask how long you intend to hold your nose.

Sadly not.

If that were so, you'd have it.

Basic animal instinct should still be above "let any delusional cunt have 100-round drums and full-auto" though.

you have absolutely no sense of perspective do you? It's really quite fascinating to me, in a train wreck sort of way.

And that, right there, is common sense.

But apparently we have to put the absurd "in perspective".

I'd say the same about a nation that has had more folk killed in gun incidents in the last month than my country has in train wrecks. The worst of which since 2000 only killed four.

"Common sense" these days seems to mean "things I agree with" to everyone.

Yeah, but in my case it's true.

US laws & rules are all about the loopholes when it comes to almost any subject, and guns are no exception.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...may-have-exploited-legal-loophole/1927566001/

????WTFAYTA???!!!

If I can't drive there in 30 minutes or less, it's too far.


As far as the 2nd Amendment goes: when the front-running Democratic Presidential candidates are not only unsupportive of the 2nd Amendment, but openly calling for confiscation, they don't just become absolutely unsupportable for me, they become someone who has to be stopped. Makes my choice clear.

Agree here. When some pol starts yapping about restricting or removing the 2nd, the very next question should be "And which of our other Constitutional rights would you like to do away with?"

whichever rights their fan base wants them to do away with?

And while you're looking at the stuff that IS written down and Dems ain't gonna take, the GOP is pulling all the shit it can with the unenumerated stuff...

"O Kettle! Thou art black!"

So the answer is it doesn't matter how many people die so long as you get what you want?

Or you'll just keep talking theoretically about defending against tyranny regardless of what actually happens in the world?

Don't know why any reasonable person thinks restrictions on the availability of firearms would make a bit of difference when it comes to mass shootings (murders).

Do they seriously believe that someone who intends to murder 5, 10, or 20 people discovers they can't acquire a firearm will simply say "the hell with it" and go back to a normal life?

That might work if these mass murders were simple impulsive actions but as we've seen most of these killings people have been planning for weeks, months, or even years on end.

Gun restrictions would make no difference to people planning that.

Planning no.

Carrying out, very possibly.

There's a world of difference.

Sans firearms the ability to kill en masse is very much restricted and doing so tends not to be an impulsive or singular act. Someone carrying out a mass shooting is a very different profile to someone who is likely to kill repeatedly over a long period and reducing the means does indeed tend to reduce (or eliminate) the body count.

I've known numerous violent offenders who have been explicitly clear that given the opportunity they'd have committed a Sandy Hook (in some cases have resented not being able to) and the thought of some of the people I've assessed down the years having access to a semi automatic is just terrifying.

I don’t know. I’m sure they’d have told us by now. For some reason they only talk about the one that involves killing people.
Otherwise you’ve made a clever refrain