Bathroom laws, Gun laws, Porn laws

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Bathroom laws target transgendered.

These laws are unjust and directly remove the rights and freedoms of innocent people based on nothing more than a basic bigotry by a class of religious conservatives. Allowing transgender people to use any rest room they feel is right for them has absolutely no impact on anyone else, and never has.

There is not one instance of any sexual assault on anyone by a transgender person in any rest room. There is however, a handful of Republican politicians who have been arrested and charged for sexual crimes in rest rooms.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Gun laws target law abiding gun owners.

The gun laws I have seen proposed don't actually have any impact on your 2nd. The laws I have seen suggested only affect those who should probably not have guns - criminals and the mentally ill. There should also be restrictions on what types of weapons someone can legally own.
That doesn't mean no guns, and it doesn't mean you can't buy one, it means that background checks should be mandatory, and that the outlets should be licensed and monitored.
How does this have any impact on your personal 2nd amendment right to own guns?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Porn laws? hahahaha Almost everyone.

There isn't a law at the moment, if you're referring to Utah.
They passed a statement declaring porn a "Heal Hazard", although this is likely just the first step in their attempts to pass laws in an effort to criminalize it completely.
Once again, this is clearly an attempt by radical Christian conservatives desperate to regain some control over the public in a climate in which their politics and their traditional control over society is crumbling.

I think we're facing two different sides here, and bringing all three suggestions up together as some kind of common cause is incorrect.

No one else is harmed by people watching what they want to watch.
No one else is harmed by people using the rest room of appropriate to them.
Other people are most certainly harmed when a person with a mental illness buys an assault rifle and goes into a school to murder as many people as possible.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
There should also be restrictions on what types of weapons someone can legally own.

Really? What kind of restrictions and who gets to determine that?

I think we're facing two different sides here, and bringing all three suggestions up together as some kind of common cause is incorrect.

I think that is where many of us in the thread disagree with you, the Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. They both have totalitarian factions that want to infringe on our rights and our lives for what they believe is morally justified issues. I would love to shove all their heads into a bucket of water until they stop blowing bubbles.

a reply to: Rocker2013

My second amendment right would be hampered by not being able to have an assault rifle to enjoy the private, lawful use of.

Yes, a mentally ill person could do something horrible. Im not mentally ill. And to restrict my rights because of what someone else might do just doesn't make logical sense.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Really? What kind of restrictions and who gets to determine that?

Why would someone need to have a weapon in their home capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute?
In what way could they use such a weapon for "self defence" or "hunting"?

We have to recognize that some weapons are designed for sport, for hunting, for self defence, and others are designed for men with micro penises who imagine that one day they will be living in a war zone where they get to shoot as many of the "enemy" as possible.

Personally, I don't actually have any problem with people using such weapons, for fun, on a firing range. But having such a weapon in your home, where it could be used to kill hundreds of people, or stolen by someone wanting to murder hundreds of people, makes absolutely no logical sense to any rational and sane person.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I think that is where many of us in the thread disagree with you, the Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. They both have totalitarian factions that want to infringe on our rights and our lives for what they believe is morally justified issues. I would love to shove all their heads into a bucket of water until they stop blowing bubbles.

Well, we'll disagree on this, but it's absolutely clear that the bathroom someone else uses has no impact at all on your life, and what legal media someone watches on the internet has no impact on anyone else's life either. The only one of the three which CLEARLY does have an impact on the lives of others is gun ownership.

You are not at risk from someone watching a porn video.
You are not at risk from someone using a rest room.
You are at risk from a mentally deranged sociopath with an assault rifle.

That's the facts, if even this basic notion is being rejected based on this constant American obsession with fapping over guns then it's no wonder the US in the state it's in.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Rocker2013


Yes, a mentally ill person could do something horrible. Im not mentally ill. And to restrict my rights because of what someone else might do just doesn't make logical sense.

That above quote could be applied to the bathroom laws, gun control laws, or proposed porn laws. That sums up the point I wanted to make, perfectly.

Thank you!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Rocker2013

My second amendment right would be hampered by not being able to have an assault rifle to enjoy the private, lawful use of.

Yes, a mentally ill person could do something horrible. Im not mentally ill. And to restrict my rights because of what someone else might do just doesn't make logical sense.

Your right to fapp yourself silly over an assault rifle is more important the hundreds of innocent people murdered by such assault rifles?

And again, increased controls to prevent the mentally ill from owning one has NO IMPACT ON YOUR LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF ONE.

This is what I really don't get about the American attitude. You call yourselves responsible gun owners, while absolutely rejecting any law which would prevent those who are NOT responsible gun owners from getting one.

If you are a responsible gun owner then you have nothing to worry about, right?
Why not just accept a law that prevents the mentally ill from getting one, requires proper and thorough background checks, and requires all those selling them to meet adequate restrictions?

None of these things have any impact on you as a responsible gun owner.

In all honesty, I don't think anyone can call themselves a "responsible gun owner" while also seemingly claiming that absolutely anyone should be able to have access to such weapons without reasonable restrictions.

That's not responsible, at all.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I get it. You don't want the mentally ill to own firearms.

Would you require a mental exam prior to buying one?

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Why would someone need to have a weapon in their home capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute?
In what way could they use such a weapon for "self defence" or "hunting"?

That is pretty much any semi-automatic firearm. Are you saying that I should only be able to purchase revolvers and lever/bolt/pump action long guns?

We have to recognize that some weapons are designed for sport, for hunting, for self defence, and others are designed for men with micro penises who imagine that one day they will be living in a war zone where they get to shoot as many of the "enemy" as possible.

Or, some of us just enjoy going to the range.

Personally, I don't actually have any problem with people using such weapons, for fun, on a firing range. But having such a weapon in your home, where it could be used to kill hundreds of people, or stolen by someone wanting to murder hundreds of people, makes absolutely no logical sense to any rational and sane person.

I am quite rational and sane and see no reason why I cannot own and store the firearms of my choice.

Well, we'll disagree on this, but it's absolutely clear that the bathroom someone else uses has no impact at all on your life, and what legal media someone watches on the internet has no impact on anyone else's life either. The only one of the three which CLEARLY does have an impact on the lives of others is gun ownership.

While the retards on both the right and left bicker over what portions of the Constitution to circumvent in their ever increasing escalation of new legislation I will reaffirm my stance that ALL rights are important, whether they affect me personally or not or whether I choose to exercise them or not.

It is easy to have your pet morals to stand on but as is being demonstrated, supporting the rights of others, even when you disagree with them, is not easy for the moral totalitarian.

To worry about the mental health of an individual in regards to gun ownership to the extent that laws get passed is as extreme as worrying about the mental health of a transgendered person prior to using the toilet.

In my opinion.

Welcome to the 21st century where the under rotting of the upstanding person is finally revealed like a bad festering wound that has been building up for years. And they are using the same old arguments that have been around for long times, nothing new, save they added in fear and scapegoating.

The arguments are boiling down to Moral, Social, Medical, Economic and Legal issues, adding in fear and all one would need is a scapegoat to point at and there you have it the arguments made in any of these legislations. Even the wording contains a majority of those.

The moral argument, which such is evil and should be banned.
The social argument: Think of the children, we must protect the children, the safety of the children.
The Medical argument: The item can be harmful to a persons health.
Economic: Oh if they do this, it will result in a loss of money, people will not want to do this or that, or are spending too much money on the item, or the item is too much money, can not burden the person and should not economically.
Legal: Crimes can be committed or stopped, people in an attempt to do their evil deeds will go to any length to break the law.

Add in fear and scapegoating: The evil doers, this or that group, can’t have them free to walk around, distrust, fear this or that group for they are all out to get you.

Guns: The politics of the country are so far divided, that they have missed the point, no longer are able to see the bigger picture, and are often at a point where neither side wants to admit that the other side has valid points. And the politicians know it, and fail to see that by not working together this debate and action continues on and on, with both sides gathering up more and more people. Even at times trampling on the rights of others. Personally I think that they need to take the leaders from both sides of this argument, lock them in a room and tell them that they can not come out until they come up with a viable solution that both sides can agree on, and get it done, putting all politics aside.

Porn and Bathrooms: This is fear driven and a drive to discriminate, make no mistake on this part. The “Moral” majority is slowly losing numbers, they can’t keep a control over the population, the inevitable is going to happen and they are terrified of what could happen. They have managed to kick and attack various groups that now the tables are turned and they are on the defensive for once. And the saddest part of all is that instead of letting things happen, and dust settle, they keep that fire burning, by pouring gas on it and like a poor marksman keep missing the target.

They can’t just craft a bill that targets one group, no, they are trying to be sneaky and do it the round about way. The politicians think that the public is stupid in that aspect and either can not read and understand, or will not read the writing, and that is that they do not like the LGBT community and will seek any and all means to discriminate against said individuals. They seek to repress people in ways that is far more destructive and dangerous than any other, and far more insidious and evil. And the saddest thing of all, is that none of them are willing to admit the truth or to state that perhaps the statistics are not there to support such. But what is interesting, is that in places where those bills are being passed, along with laws, those states have the highest incidences of STD’s, teen pregnancies, and porn accessed across the spectrum. These laws are not about protecting the children, but against the one group that they find the most distasteful and who they find abhorrent for nothing more than being alive and breathing.

originally posted by: Rocker2013


Your right to fapp yourself silly over an assault rifle is more important the hundreds of innocent people murdered by such assault rifles?

/intelligent discussion

its a little too late for decency in the US. screw morals.

i think were going in the wrong direction. .. we need more guns, porn, ans sexually ambiguous individuals.
and more drugs... forget OD rates at all time high.
i want everything which falls under 'freedom of x' to be free from regulations and free to ve interpreted freely.

i want complete utter moral debauchery.
imagineb what society will be like in 200 years if we curb our ugliest vanities. imagine if we dont...
i want the latter.