The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **LobsterJ** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:28 pm

Lionel Terror wrote:What guns?

If you really believe there is a civil war imminent and you don't have guns, well...

shouldn't you get some??

by **habitual** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:34 pm

nietoperz wrote:To be fair, I think he's just presenting a hypothetical question of ethics as opposed to an actual proposed constitutional amendment.

Yeah, I thought his hypothetical question was so off base and out of touch with reality it needed to be ridiculed.

I don't really see the point in a debate of trying to frame your opponent as a lawbreaker.

Hab

by **Lionel Terror** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:52 pm

habitual wrote:

You're an idiot, and this is coming from a liberal gunowner.

Please stop talking about this, you're making gunowner's look bad.

Hab

Aside from the debatable first sentence, which is of course opinion, what else did I write that makes me look bad? Everything else was utter fact.

habitual wrote:Because the chances are about equal that an amendment like your proposing would ever be passed.

Hab

15-20 years ago people would have thought the mere proposition of an amendment like the above had about the same chance.

LobsterJ wrote:If you really believe there is a civil war imminent and you don't have guns, well...

shouldn't you get some??

My guns were stolen out the trunk of my car a month ago.

See how easy that was....

by **habitual** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:40 pm

Lionel Terror wrote:Aside from the debatable first sentence, which is of course opinion, what else did I write that makes me look bad? Everything else was utter fact.

15-20 years ago people would have thought the mere proposition of an amendment like the above had about the same chance.

My guns were stolen out the trunk of my car a month ago.

See how easy that was....

Continuing to make gunowners look bad.

Hab

by **syxxpakk** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:47 pm

Civil War?

Can we make up trendy "WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?" banners?

by **LobsterJ** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:04 pm

habitual wrote:
Yeah, I thought his hypothetical question was so off base and out of touch with reality it needed to be ridiculed.

I don't really see the point in a debate of trying to frame your opponent as a lawbreaker.

Hab

I didn't suppose far-fetched hypotheticals were that outlandish in a thread that claims a bill introduced in the Missouri legislature is going to start a civil war.

by **achilles** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:25 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:What's so civil about war anyway?

Politeness is everything.

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:13 pm

I don't need your civil war-oh-war! It feeds the rich while it buries the poor-oh-oor! You're power hungry, sellin' soldiers in a... human grocery store (ain't that fresh?).

by **Lord Simian** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:47 pm

achilles wrote:
Politeness is everything.

What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach... So, you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it.

by **ReturnoftheMack** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:49 am

habitual wrote:
Yeah, I thought his hypothetical question was so off base and out of touch with reality it needed to be ridiculed.

I don't really see the point in a debate of trying to frame your opponent as a lawbreaker.

Hab

You totally missed his point.

Many gun owners use the Second Amendment to cut off any debate. "It's in the Constitution so it's my right."

So what if it wasn't? Would that change anything? It's a valid question about what gun owners really care about, their rights based on the Constitution or their rights to own something that has the primary use of killing.

by **ReturnoftheMack** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:53 am

Also, guns are for people with small dicks. For most gun owners, owning a gun is equivalent to buying a Hummer/sports car.

by **S.F. Jude Terror** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:00 am

ReturnoftheMack wrote:Also, guns are for people with small dicks. For most gun owners, owning a gun is equivalent to buying a Hummer/sports car.

I don't have a gun, but, if I did, I would use it to fuck people.

by **Jubilee** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:20 am

angliawatson wrote:We would never lock the thread as long as it remains one for political discussion - in fact I think it's a good idea. That said, as soon as anyone (conservative or liberal) starts in with ad hominem attacks they will be thread kicked. In other words: liberals, if you don't want to see it don't come into the thread, and above all everyone, if someone says something you don't like, try to debate it rationally without resorting to insults.

A great way to live. I'll drink to that Anglia!!!!

by **habitual** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:01 am

ReturnoftheMack wrote:
You totally missed his point.

Many gun owners use the Second Amendment to cut off any debate. "It's in the Constitution so it's my right."

So what if it wasn't? Would that change anything? It's a valid question about what gun owners really care about, their rights based on the Constitution or their rights to own something that has the primary use of killing.

No I didn't, it was a stupid point with no real value.

Hab