Jump to content
And speaking of straw men, the malignant punk never said 'he will aggressively defend himself' - from anything. Your words, and not at all what the malignant punk wrote. It posted: I will hurt you.
So it's okay for you to interpret and paraphrase what other people say; to assign criminal intent to people you've never met - those you disagree with are not allowed to so presume.
I forgot to add "raging hypocrite" to stupid, malicious, and cowardly.
Straw men? Hardly.
Your immediate contribution after the malignant punk issued its pansy ass threat was to WRITE: Above Rhys offers that he will aggressively defend himself if Mark pulls a gun. That is offensive? I don't get that at all.
And that’s when you deployed your ‘It’s okay to threaten a law abiding citizen because we’re assuming he’s a murderous scumbag’ jive. While simultaneously wailing about how absurd it is that anyone would dare ascribe ill intent to you and the malignant punk.
The semantic contortions you’ve gone through to administer your uber-lubricated hand job are truly remarkable. I haven’t decided yet if it’s a function of stupidity, malice, or cowardice.
I suspect it’s a conflation of the three.
In other words, it's "absurd" for me to presume that Rhys (or you) would ever threaten a law abiding citizen. But it's not absurd for you and Rhys to presume that law abiding citizens like me and Mark would deploy our weapons with the sole intent of committing a violent crime; which according to you is the premise and rationale for Rhys's candy-ass preemptive threat.
Double standard much?
Apparently the troll has never been able to wrap its head around the concepts of sarcasm or satire. Maybe it can bone up before its next GED reunion.
Lewi writes: "That is an absurd premise, I would threaten law abiding citizens. Worse, you cannot get there by reading my post. Here is what I said, "If Mark pulls a gun and there is nowhere to run, or others don't have that option, you aggressively defend yourself and them. If you can, you break Mark's arms, knock him out, whatever it takes."
Except that's not what the malignant punk said; you've embellished and changed what it said to ameliorate its threat into something defensible.
The malignant punk posted the following: "Don't whip your guns out where I'm at. I'll hurt you."
Nothing in there about perceived threats or escape routes; you made all of that up.
You're a liar, in other words.
How nice - a new troll has emerged, following the same pattern as all the rest: deploy insults & name calling; every bit as predictable as Pavlov's rabid cur.
The gun control arguments are a non starter, despite Preezy's recent lip service touting the mandatory confiscation models of Australia & the UK; neither of which have anything resembling our 2nd Amendment protections. Barring a repeal of or major change to that amendment, the only restrictions allowable will impact no one but the law-abiding. Criminals and the deranged will remain unaffected.
So if you're on the gun control side of the argument, the 2nd Amendment is your roadblock. For the civics-challenged among us, that requires you to consult Article V of the Constitution, wherein your remedy lies:
Get two thirds of the Congress and the Senate to agree on an amendment to present to the country. Then all you need are three quarters, or 37 state legislatures to sign off on it. Only 13 states need disagree to scuttle the attempt.
Good luck with that.
I'm also not angry the malignant punk, any more than I would be angry with a mosquito - and I'm certainly not wary of his pansy-ass chest thumping; just weary of the hypocrisy. And not just on this issue. It's whenever they deploy their 'do as I say, not as I do' jive.
I've decided that I can spend my time more productively mowing the lawn with a pocket knife than I can sparring with that level of duplicity and cowardice.
And for the record: I don't want ANY comments removed. We all benefit when malignance and stupidity are out in the open for everyone to marvel at and learn from.
Oh, for stupidity's sake. I've clearly given you too much credit, Steve.
Why to law abiding citizens acquire a concealed carry permit? To pull our guns? Are you honestly that moronic? Is that really your premise for threatening law abiding citizens? Do you seriously think you're going to win converts with this semantic twaddle?
You and the malignant punk have both been explicit: Pull a gun, and I will hurt you. There's no ambiguity there. I'm taking each of you at your word.
The guy in Atlanta in the post above pulled his gun. You would have hurt him, yes?
Me and my dad pulled our guns. You would have hurt us, yes?
One wonders if our malignant punk (because he's such a badass, dontchaknow) would have "hurt" this guy, and if not, why.
Lewi writes: “Above Rhys offers that he will aggressively defend himself if Mark pulls a gun. That is offensive? I don't get that at all. ”
Demagogues often don't. You and Rhys could just as easily assert you may need to “aggressively” defend yourselves if Mark decides to rape you. He is, after all, equipped to commit the crime.
You've proven our point about the grievance industry: your default position is to be aggrieved, insulted, and imperiled. Those you disagree with are guilty until proven innocent; and that justifies a preemptive threat of bodily harm.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Last login: Sunday, June 26, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |