POTWR: Inaugural Address 2019

[Cubo de Sangre]

Oh, nothing really.

Most of the subject matter I focus on is fairly esoteric to a lot people, it doesn't leave much room for debate. I'd argue my signature with anyone (first quote, second one is just hateful) or maybe the aesthetics and artistic detail of the human masculine / feminine forms with @franklinstower lol.

If you get inspired let me know.

 

[JamesRussler]

You've lost me

<[analyzed}>
Don't play dumb

 

[Limbo Pete]

<[analyzed}>
Don't play dumb

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If you're confused by the picture I think that's his way of starting his post off with "Jesus Christ".

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

<[analyzed}>
Don't play dumb

Would you agree that simply rephrasing would be more efficient and productive?

 

[Trotsky]

That's my problem with you history types. You just change history to fit your narrative.

 

[JamesRussler]

Would you agree that simply rephrasing would be more efficient and productive?

The Left likes to magnify the importance of Shays' Rebellion in Second Amendment history in order to argue that the Framers had a particular distaste for rednecks with guns. Here's an example of the argument Pete is trying to set up. It's basically agenda-driven historical revisionism he's engaging in. In reality, Shays' Rebellion was but one of numerous events the Framers considered in drafting the U.S. Constitution. It was not a primary consideration behind the Second Amendment.

 

[Fawlty]

How about shitcanning fake lawyers who accuse real historians of revisionism based on nothing but a paranoid hunch

That might make for better threads

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The Left likes to magnify the importance of Shays' Rebellion in Second Amendment history in order to argue that the Framers had a particular distaste for rednecks with guns. Here's an example of the argument Pete is trying to set up. It's basically agenda-driven historical revisionism he's engaging in. In reality, Shays' Rebellion was but one of numerous events the Framers considered in drafting the U.S. Constitution. It was not a primary consideration behind the Second Amendment.

I love your substance here. Lean, mean, fightin' machine.

Don't look at me as someone censoring you. Look at me as someone determined to coax the best out of you.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

How about shitcanning fake lawyers who accuse real historians of revisionism based on nothing but a paranoid hunch

That might make for better threads

Please elaborate on shitcanning and fake.

 

[Fawlty]

Please elaborate on shitcanning and fake.

I know it's hard to call out kin-trolls. I accept the strides you have made so far though. Another hill on another day.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I know it's hard to call out kin-trolls. I accept the strides you have made so far though. Another hill on another day.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Ay caramba

 

[Fawlty]

Ay caramba

Yep.

Nope.



I'll argue that the second amendment should be replaced with a right to self-defense, which has some interesting implications in both the short and long term, but almost certainly better outcomes than quibbling over the intent of the founders. I'm suggesting we just completely ditch all of their ideas on this and reformulate. It won't please any current gun control advocates but it also won't please paranoid gun worshipers. It's either a solution for nobody or a solution for everybody...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Nope.



I'll argue that the second amendment should be replaced with a right to self-defense, which has some interesting implications in both the short and long term, but almost certainly better outcomes than quibbling over the intent of the founders. I'm suggesting we just completely ditch all of their ideas on this and reformulate. It won't please any current gun control advocates but it also won't please paranoid gun worshipers. It's either a solution for nobody or a solution for everybody...

The difference between this post and your last post is why your "nope" is really a yep. Nice work.

 

[nhbbear]

In terms of 2nd Amendment threads, I'd kinda like to see one where a panel of the board's gun control advocates reach some consensus on what it would take for them to be satisfied with the laws.

Then perhaps a panel from the other side discussing a counter-offer.

Put me down for that one as well

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Put me down for that one as well

On the gun control panel, as the voice of reason?

 

[nhbbear]

On the gun control panel, as the voice of reason?

I actually see the merit on both sides of this discussion

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I actually see the merit on both sides of this discussion

Sounds like neither side will want you on their team. So you're on side gun control for now.

 

[nhbbear]

Sounds like neither side will want you on their team. So you're on side gun control for now.

I can be either side, but I consider myself a staunch supporter of the second. Putting me on the control side probably would not be representative of my core beilef