El Luchador

10 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

Don’t forget youtube videos.

Not even  close to the same level of deception.  Especially when they give actual information that has to withstand scrutiny, and put their reputation on that information. 

This one is accurate 

Here's one we can all agree is real.

19 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

If there is anything we can trust  it's a picture off the internet. 

7 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1657702516891721730

I have no idea what I just watched but it was hilarious. 

The Groomers stopped hiding their agenda. 

6 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

If someone makes an ammonium nitrate bomb, should that be illegal?

 

If I said no, how would you enforce it? The truth is you can't  and any attempt to  do so would only harm people with legitimate use of fertilizer, and prevent zero acts of terror.

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

*Should* is the operative word.

If these weapons *shouldn't* be regulated because anyone can make them from their precursor components, as you two seem to be implying, then when *should* law enforcement be able to step in?

When they can do so without violation of the constitution, without passing useless laws that do more harm than good, and without total authoritarian government intrusions. You could outlaw fertilizer,  but fertilizer feeds the world and the terrorists would just use an alternative method. 

8 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

That's a 'no' then?

Answer my question so I can help your understanding.  I don't know what's so hard to understand about my position, other than it's not what you want to hear. 

Maybe I should ask you what part of the constitution you would like to see violated. 

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

Can you give a straight answer?

What part of the constitution do need clarification on? 

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

Should the federal and state governments remain unable to prevent acts like McVeigh's prior to the actual detonation?

It goes to intent.

Only within the limitations of the constitution. 

10 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

People do not need more than a five round magazine, hand guns included.  Rifles should be bolt action.  Assault weapons should be turned into plows.

Arbitrary number. Literally would out law 99% of all guns, and solve nothing. 

47 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

So, you guys would appear to be A-OK with Timothy McVeigh right up until the point he detonated those explosives.

So do you want to prohibit diesel fuel, or fertilizer? 

5 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

That's just flatly wrong.

Russia has nearly perfected the art of using novichok with limited collateral damage.

You prefer other poisons? Again you could never even come close to regulating everything that could be used as a poison. Phosgene gas can easily be made by anyone. So again you seek regulations that would be completely worthless. Forcing someone to change their weapons will never prevent any crime.  

3 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

He is absolutely honest.  Lots of WMDs are bearable and regulated so tightly they can't be owned for all intents and purposes.  High grade explosives for example.  Assault weapons are a counter-example of WMDs that are not well regulated.

WMDs are not even remotely relevant.  They are indiscriminate and uncontrollable. But let's be realistic,  explosives are controlled as are chemicals,  but it would take minimal effort to construct a significant explosive weapon.  It happens all over the world in terrorism attacks.  Where there is a will there will always be a way. Timothy McVeigh would not have been stopped by regulations, nor would Darrel Brooks have been. All that you can do is change up the method. 

A Representative who wants to ban teaching unproven science,  or one who wants to protect pedophiles?

https://dailycaller.com/2023/04/26/minnesota-bill-could-make-pedophiles-a-protected-class/

7 hours ago, Le duke said:

I didn’t say that.

I’m simply pointing out that there would appear to be some limitations on what arms you could bear, legally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are trying to link WMDs and bearable arms, that is intellectually dishonest. 

Are they available?  Let's be realistic.  BTW a 40 Oz gun is way to heavy to carry,  so I don't think a 100 lb weapon is going to take over the market place.  Most countries don't have nukes, and I doubt they would be affordable.

42 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Let’s take this to its logical, absurd conclusion.

Nuclear weapons would meet the definition of “arms”, as written. Should wealthy individuals be allowed to purchase and own them to prevent government intrusion upon private citizens?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is a nuke a bearable weapon? 

58 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

As recent history demonstrates, one packed court from an entirely different definition of reality.

The coury is supposed to apply the constitution as written  and intended. The intent is clear,  anything else is judicial activism. 

Not even debatable what they intended  

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776