Another school shooting in rural America

I'm going to defend myself from somebody using a gun or knife. That attacker is not harmless because the person doesn't have a gun. A gun is not the only way to kill somebody.

Which people?

Which people?

Usually majority or the government.

So when the majority want a genocide that's not murder?

So when the majority want a genocide that's not murder?

Majority/government decides what is and isnt murder. Thats how its always been.

Answer yes or no, unless you want to keep running away.

Answer yes or no, unless you want to keep running away.

I already answered, clearly.

Wait so you get to decide my intent and the meaning of my words depends on my intent, which you decide. You must be an ADOL scholar, congratulations!

You implied it in two different ways. First you said anything created by man is subjective. Words are created by man, therefore you said words are subjective.

Secondly you said that the meaning of words depended on intent, and intent which apparently changes after you die making it some kind of mystical property only discernible by the tech priests known as "scholars".

Everything in life requires balance.

What's your balanced intake of sarin gas? What's the right balance between murder and non-murder? How much contradiction should be mixed in with truth?

It's not a fallacy when the slope is slippery and there are a lot of people at the bottom of that slope who started with the best intentions.

Fine, play stupid. Ctrl-v makes this easy:

If you don't think the problem can be solved by law then make that case, as silly as that idea is. Good luck.

If you think you can prove that all problems are soluble by law until proven otherwise then make that case

If someone decided to walk into your child's school with the intent to slaughter as many people as possible, would you rather he be armed with a knife, a handgun, or an AK47?

I don't know.

Wait so you get to decide my intent and the meaning of my words depends on my intent, which you decide. You must be an ADOL scholar, congratulations!

lol, you really thought that was clever.

Secondly you said that the meaning of words depended on intent, and intent which apparently changes after you die making it some kind of mystical property only discernible by the tech priests known as "scholars".

Intent is where the meaning becomes objective. Someone's interpretation of your words is irrelevant to what you were actually trying to say because the message you intended to convey is a matter of objective fact.

If you're more concerned with the words used than message being conveyed you aren't communicating.

These are not analogous to what we're talking about.

because rights don't do you any good when you're dead.

It's not a fallacy when the slope is slippery and there are a lot of people at the bottom of that slope who started with the best intentions.

It's a fallacy to claim X will lead to Y when not only is that demonstrably untrue

If you don't think the problem can be solved by law then make that case, as silly as that idea is. Good luck.

If you think you can prove that all problems are soluble by law until proven otherwise then make that case

Why would I make the case to defend something I never argued?

Thinking you can ignore the law because you feel comfortable assuming the words written were a mistake because you assume you knew what they would have intended given information they didn't have doesn't work too well either.

In fact 95% of the time you or anyone else accuse me of a strawman it's because you didn't make your 'intent' clear (you used language imprecisely or incorrectly) and then you got mad because I read between the lines.

because rights don't do you any good when you're dead.

and violating the rights of intelligent violent apes that number in the billions and carry guns is not very safe. Also, right to die?

If the default wasn't that every problem is soluble by law then why would I need to prove that mental health is insoluble by law?

Just because I don't give you the answer you want , I'm still going to give my best answer the way I see it.

The problem is, you just look for hypotheticals. Doesn't prove anything of what I do in the real situation.

So I'm going to be honest and say I don't know what I'd do in a situation until I'm actually in it. I can't foretell the future. I don't know like I said. 

It's not a mistake to limit the meaning of your words to things that existed at the time you wrote them

it's absurd to assume that anything one would later invent (like a nuclear warhead) becomes automatically built into the law you wrote because they decided to call it an arm.

Because if you're a lawmaker then it's literally your job.

It's not a mistake to limit the meaning of your words to things that existed at the time you wrote them

There were no TVs or radios or internet forums. Therefore the 1st amendment assertion of the right to free speech does not apply to them. Someone should tell Trump it will be very easy to shut MSNBC up.

it's absurd to assume that anything one would later invent (like a nuclear warhead) becomes automatically built into the law you wrote because they decided to call it an arm.

They didn't decide to call it a weapon. It is a weapon.

Because if you're a lawmaker then it's literally your job.

To pass laws at random until somebody proves that they aren't helping? I don't think so.

It's not a mistake to limit the meaning of your words to things that existed at the time you wrote them

There were no TVs or radios or internet forums. Therefore the 1st amendment assertion of the right to free speech does not apply to them. Someone should tell Trump it will be very easy to shut MSNBC up.

This is why we have courts to litigate these issues.

A nuclear warhead does not fit into any conception of an arm which the framers had at the time they wrote those words.

No genius

GP I remember that pic of you and your son. You were a lard ass among lard asses and he was a dweeby four-eyes. The fuck are you talking about T levels for, you're a hermaphroditic whale.

This is why we have courts to litigate these issues.

How convenient for the courts and those who control them, the words mean whatever they want them to mean.

Your argument was defeated

A nuclear warhead does not fit into any conception of an arm which the framers had at the time they wrote those words.

It is not a weapon which existed or could be predicted but it is a weapon. They understood the concept of a tool used to make war.

you just conceded.

Still didn't exist and therefore could not have possibly been considered at the time they wrote the 2nd amendment.

Again: There were no TVs or radios or internet forums. Therefore the 1st amendment assertion of the right to free speech does not apply to them.

This is why we have courts to litigate these issues. No one knows what the founding fathers would have thought about free speech in the context of the twitterverse, but we can make reasonable presumptions as to what the intent was and how it applies, in fact that's all we can do.

Again: There were no TVs or radios or internet forums. Therefore the 1st amendment assertion of the right to free speech does not apply to them.

I never argued the first amendment doesn't or wouldn't apply to them.

This is why we have courts to litigate these issues. No one knows what the founding fathers would have thought about free speech in the context of the twitterverse, but we can make reasonable presumptions as to what the intent was and how it applies, in fact that's all we can do.

Still didn't exist and therefore could not have possibly been considered at the time they wrote the 2nd amendment.

No one knows what the founding fathers would have thought about free speech in the context of the twitterverse, but we can make reasonable presumptions as to what the intent was and how it applies, in fact that's all we can do.