Recent Comments

1. almost 5 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   So Rueben is just doing straight-up documentary now.

2. almost 6 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   I find the argument that impeachment is pointless if Republicans in the Senate won’t convict him lacking. For one thing, Republicans are not going to call for his impeachment as long as Democrats are waffling about it. What would be the point of making themselves a target of Trump’s anger if Democrats aren’t going to follow through?

   Second by not impeaching, Dems are protecting Republicans from having to take a stand on the issue. If he is impeached then Republicans are going to have to go in front of the cameras and justify protecting a criminal.

3. about 6 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   Actually, I wasn’t giving you my opinion, I was giving you a factual defense of my position. Your argument literally rests entirely on your personal interpretation of the 2nd amendment which is not supported by SC precedent and is your opinion alone.

   The topic was actually you insisting there was a state of emergency to do with immigration and I merely pointed out that you shouldn’t expect us to take your overamped concerns seriously when you ignore a far more serious and deadly issue. Now that you’ve lost that argument you want to pretend it was just a diversion because I’m scared to debate you on the wall.

   My point was entirely germaine to the discussion and not a diversion, don’t get cross with me if you have trouble following the thread of a conversation.

4. about 6 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   Bit of projection there isn’t it.

   You want to take this absolutist view of the 2nd amendment in which any attempt to legislate firearms is illegal but you are completely ignoring the fact that the SC has already ruled on numerous cases that there are legitimate limitations, such as the story I linked.

   Hell, there was a 10 year ban on assault weapons and the Supreme court didn’t strike it down, the only reason it no longer exists is because an expiration was written into the original law and Republicans chose not to renew it. So obviously writing gun-control legislation isn’t inherently unconstitutional.

   So I repeat, your argument is already discredited. You can act like a whiny baby, but you can’t offer a factual rebuttal.

5. about 6 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   Ha ha!

   https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/pritzker-signs-gun-dealer-licensing-measure-504488572.html

   OH NOES, ANOTHER CRIMINAL BREAKING THE 2ND AMENDMENT! LOCK HIM UP!

   Putz.

6. about 6 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   Yes, you can try again after your nap. And if you’re good maybe mummy will give you pudding for lunch.

7. about 6 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   Pretty convoluted.

   Sometimes when you try and be too clever you tangle yourself up in knots. Why don’t you rewrite it in a way that is comprehensible, because honestly I have no idea what point you were trying to make with that gibberish.

   How about you quit trying to pwn me with glib, disingenuous logic and just explain to me what purpose laws against stealing serve when criminals are going to steal anyway. Is it your view that they are utterly pointless and should be eliminated?

   If you tell me laws against stealing serve no purpose, I will disagree, but at least I will admit that you are consistent in your principles. If you don’t support eliminating laws against theft then your entire argument is nonsense and you know it.

8. about 6 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   You’re right. For example, we have laws against stealing, yet people still steal. So do we decide those laws are pointless and only serve to restrict the law abiding? No, we use those laws to punish those who steal you stupid f@&king numpty.

   The argument you are making, whether you realize it or not, is that all laws are pointless, which is a pretty tough position to defend I would think.

9. about 6 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

   As I pointed out, those ‘infringements’ have already passed constitutional muster by the courts, so your point was irrelevant before you made it.

   Do you have an objection to registering and licensing firearms that you can defend on factual basis or is chanting the 2nd amendment like it’s a magic talisman the limits of your intellectual ability?

   No need to answer, I’ve seen enough of you not to expect a factual response.

10. about 6 years ago on Tom the Dancing Bug

    Ah, the old “criminals don’t obey laws, so why have them” argument.

    I like that you go straight to the bottom of the barrel rather than trying to waste time with a persuasive case.

    It often seems unjust to me that we have a law against murder. Criminals are going to break it anyway, so it’s directed at me, a law abiding citizen? So unfair.

    There is plenty of argument to be had about the precise meaning of a handful of words in the constitution, but since gun registries and mandatory licenses seem to have withstood constitutional challenge in 15 states, it seems like a great place to start. It would take a big bite out of all those black market guns.

    Can you give me any good reason that would be objectionable? Or do you really feel that the only way we can be safe is if we can sell our guns to criminals without fear of being arrested?