Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

So as we all know, the newly-elected government of Virginia attempted to pass laws against individual firearms ownership, immediately triggering massive protest movement against infringement on gun rights.
Multiple counties declared themselves as 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries (which constitute pretty much all of Virginia except for one over-populated pocket of Democrat supporters) and law enforcement officials vowed to refuse to enforce the illiberal draconian legislature, which in response caused the newly-elected General Secretary governor to threaten his population with National Guard and use of brute military force and even declared a state of emergency. Very democratic and liberal of him.
What was even more interesting, West Virginia openly suggesting to annex Virginia's pro-2A counties - which would pretty much constitute all of Virginia, except the above-mentioned pocket of gun control supporters.
As per its usual tradition, legacy media endlessly screeched about gun-rights activists all being violent Nazis and domestic terrorists who would undoubtedly commit massive acts of terror. And as usual, legacy media has been proven wrong by reality.
Today a massive demonstration was held in Virginia, thousands of gun owners and gun rights activists showed up openly carrying their firearms, people of all backgrounds and political beliefs showed up to defend their Constitutional Rights. Of course, nobody was harmed in any way.
Clearly, if there is one thing that can unite a rather divided American society it is the desire to own and bear firearms.


So a few points for further discussion:
- Should over-populated urban centers really have power to legislate over less densely-populated areas? There is an obvious disparity in political beliefs and values, and mob rule by urbanite population is a very destabilizing factor.
- The reason why Democrats were elected in Virginia was because of influx of population from other blue states. Essentially what is happening is Democrat voters escape results of Democrat policies in blue states - only to vote for these policies in red states they just moved to. What changes need to be implemented to prevent that? If someone from a blue state moves to a red state, should his vote count for the previous state at least for the next one or two election cycles (and visa versa)?
- Should media be held at least morally responsible for openly defaming gun-rights activists?

So you want to abolish democracy and free speech?

Oh man your ideas are ridiculous and blatantly unconstitutional. A new voter in a new state shouldn't have their vote re-directed to their previous state. It makes no sense. Who'd the vote go to in the previous state? It just sounds so dumb.

Virginia elected the Democrats into power who advocated for gun control. They knew what they wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanoi

Oh man your ideas are ridiculous and blatantly unconstitutional.

---

Kinda like anti-gun laws...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phier

Kinda like anti-gun laws...

---

Any "anti-gun" law? I think the Supreme Court disagrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanoi

Oh man your ideas are ridiculous and blatantly unconstitutional. A new voter in a new state shouldn't have their vote re-directed to their previous state. It makes no sense. Who'd the vote go to in the previous state? It just sounds so dumb.

---

I presume the party they'd vote for. Democrat voters moving en masse to Republican states only to vote in Democrat governments that would create same problem that caused them to leave the original state to begin with is a huge problem and is objectively a threat to democracy.

Quote:

---

Virginia elected the Democrats into power who advocated for gun control. They knew what they wanted.

---

Urban population did. Again, dictatorship of urbanites is also a threat to democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phier

Kinda like anti-gun laws...

---

Except that anti-gun laws are far worse. It is essentially class warfare, for rich (who can afford to live in guarded gated communities or even armed security detail), who scoff at the idea that someone may need a firearm to defend himself.
Gun control in itself is relic and legacy of Jim Crow laws, ironically Democrats supported both, until they realized that they could sell minorities welfare in exchange for votes.

What dictatorship of the urbanites? Do they get two votes each or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phier

Kinda like anti-gun laws...

---

The Conservative majority in Heller v. DC disagrees. Even Scalia believed in gun control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

I presume the party they'd vote for.

---

What if its a third party not running in their previous state? And you do realize that candidates all have different ideas right? Why should their vote go to a candidate they didn't want to win?

Quote:

---

Democrat voters moving en masse to Republican states only to vote in Democrat governments that would create same problem that caused them to leave the original state to begin with is a huge problem and is objectively a threat to democracy.

---

No thats democracy in action. People have the right to move to a new state and vote in elections there that effect them. Not an election in another state they moved from. A Republican who moves from California to my state and has his vote counted for California instead is completely undemocratic and again blatantly unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Except that anti-gun laws are far worse. It is essentially class warfare, for rich (who can afford to live in guarded gated communities or even armed security detail), who scoff at the idea that someone may need a firearm to defend himself.
Gun control in itself is relic and legacy of Jim Crow laws, ironically Democrats supported both, until they realized that they could sell minorities welfare in exchange for votes.

---

Jim Crow was deemed unconstitutional and took rights away from people unlike gun control where its only regulated and you are still very able to buy a weapon. The Conservatives on the Supreme Court agree with me.

Ranting idiots aside, its a shame the peaceful majority of protesters have to be smeared by a small number threatening violence. A few psychos can throw a whole movement off the rails.

Quote:

---

Northam's emergency declaration, however, bans all weapons around the state Capitol grounds through Tuesday, and a special rules committee in the General Assembly banned guns inside the Capitol and a legislative office building.

---

The horror. Banning firearms around government buildings. And why?

Quote:

---

Fearing violence similar to that of the deadly white nationalist rally in Charlottesville in 2017, Northam banned all weapons near the state Capitol under the emergency order, which the Virginia Supreme Court upheld after a legal challenge.

At least six suspected members of a violent neo-Nazi group were arrested late last week; three of them reportedly planned to attend the rally. Three men in Maryland face various federal firearm and alien-harboring charges and three in Georgia face conspiracy to commit murder and gang charges.

However, no major incidents were reported at the rally itself, which was conducted under heavy security. The hour-long demonstration concluded a little after noon with only one arrest.

---

Totally unreasonable. Authoritarian! End of Democracy! What next? Will they demand licensing for simply driving out cars???? Just step one of a Big Brother nanny state!!!

Quote:

---

RICHMOND, Va. (WRIC) — The Virginia Senate passed yet another gun-safety measure on Wednesday when lawmakers voted 21-19 along party lines to advance the “red-flag” gun law.

The legislation, if approved by the House and signed by the governor, would permit authorities to temporarily take firearms from owners believed to be dangerous or who could pose a threat to themselves or others.

---

*Gasp*

How can Trump stand by and just watch while they blatantly tear the guns out of our arms because we threatened to storm the Richmond Capitol building with our AR-15s???

Quote:

---

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

---

It is the end of United States of America. I'm sorry my brothers. We have failed Jefferson, Washington, and Taylor Swift's legs. The Republic has fallen. Not even stormed by the barbarians like Constantinople, but from within. Defeated by traitors and short-sighted men.

^The same argument you will hear at every stage of the incrementalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

^The same argument you will hear at every stage of the incrementalism.

---

As opposed to a slippery slope argument.

So, do people in cities get more than one vote each?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

As opposed to a slippery slope argument.

---

The fallacy of the slippery slope. Only a fool would assume that progressive activists have limiting principles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

The fallacy of the slippery slope. Only a fool would assume that progressive activists have limiting principles.

---

Thank you for your wonderful opinion. I have decided, we should oppose universal background checks for gun purchases because that might lead to Johnny Stalin putting us all in a Kholhoz.

:wub: it. Let's abolish the ATF in its entirety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

False dichotomy. The government should have the ability to incarcerate people, but it can do so for the wrong reason, hence the criticism. Especially when such actions are done with malice and adopted as de-facto policy.

---

What has that got to do with your hypocrisy in mocking 2A advocates for predicting the eventual emergence of a tyrannical govt. whilst at the same time insisting that Trump is currently leading a tyrannical govt.?

Quote:

---

Nobody cares.

---

I'm sure the rest of the board can speak for themselves. You were already corrected by someone other than me. Personally I think you should be more grateful for the free education you're getting; at least now you won't embarrass yourself by conflating extermination and concentration camps in real life.

What agenda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

What has that got to do with your hypocrisy in mocking 2A advocates for predicting the eventual emergence of a tyrannical govt. whilst at the same time insisting that Trump is currently leading a tyrannical govt.?

---

That's your own fabrication. I'm mocking 2A advocates because they are opposing basic public safety measures for the sake of a belief that the 2nd amendment will stop a tyrant. The rest of it was simply off-topic nonsense brought up by you, not me.

Quote:

---

I'm sure the rest of the board can speak for themselves. You were already corrected by someone other than me. Personally I think you should be more grateful for the free education you're getting; at least now you won't embarrass yourself by conflating extermination and concentration camps in real life.

---

The rest of the board, and you, can think whatever they want, that doesn't make the label "concentration camp" is inaccurate.

Quote:

---

Arguing for further citizen disarmament at a moment when, according to you, a malicious, tyrannical administration is throwing people into concentration camps (so sayeth "numerous historians") seems remarkably suspicious. It's almost as if you're promoting some sort of agenda.

---

I always promoted an agenda, and you're free to make your accusations explicit, they don't offend me. On the other hand, the existence of a malicious and tyrannical administration has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment isn't going to stop a tyrannical government from emerging, but it has allowed for massive proliferation of arms that have endangered public safety, on more than one occasion.

I'm also not sure why you're bringing up concentration camps, yet again. I'm aware that the terminology and semantics hurts your sensibilities. Yet it doesn't address the topic at hand.

As a comedic tidbit,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

That's your own fabrication. I'm mocking 2A advocates because they are opposing basic public safety measures for the sake of a belief that the 2nd amendment will stop a tyrant. The rest of it was simply off-topic nonsense brought up by you, not me.

---

No, they're opposing the incrementalism of shrieking progressive zealots who pray at the alter of Scandinavianism and, like your pal Beto, believe in the whole scale confiscation of arms.

Quote:

---

The rest of the board, and you, can think whatever they want, that doesn't make the label "concentration camp" is inaccurate.

---

The label is inaccurate, but that's not the point. The point is that since you don't even know the difference between a concentration camp and an extermination camp, you are in no position to lecture others on the subject.

Quote:

---

I always promoted an agenda

---

That's why, as I mentioned, I don't believe that you, or people like you, have any limiting principles - especially not when you muse over the abolition of democracy and side with Islamist justifications for the killing of US troops.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, the existence of a malicious and tyrannical administration has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment isn't going to stop a tyrannical government from emerging, but it has allowed for massive proliferation of arms that have endangered public safety, on more than one occasion. I'm also not sure why you're bringing up concentration camps, yet again. I'm aware that the terminology and semantics hurts your sensibilities. Yet it doesn't address the topic at hand.

---

The purpose of the 2A is to ensure the security of a free State. If you believe that the prospective "existence of a tyrannical administration has nothing to do with the right to bear arms" then you're merely proving my point that people have a reason to be suspicious of your motives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

No, they're opposing the incrementalism of shrieking progressive zealots who pray at the alter of Scandinavianism and, like your pal Beto, believe in the whole scale confiscation of arms.

---

They're not opposing confiscation of arms because nobody is actually confiscating their arms en masse or wrote a bill to do so. They're opposing the laws listed, which they probably didn't even glance at.

Quote:

---

The label is inaccurate, but that's not the point. The point is that since you don't even know the difference between a concentration camp and an extermination camp, you are in no position to lecture others on the subject.

---

You didn't demonstrate this, and I don't know where you're getting this from. I'm well aware about the differences between an extermination camp and a concentration camp. I'm not an authority to lecture anybody on the subject because I'm not an expert on the subject matter. Yet many people who are, find the term perfectly admissible.

Quote:

---

That's why, as I mentioned, I don't believe that you, or people like you, have any limiting principles - especially not when you muse over the abolition of democracy and side with Islamist justifications for the killing of US troops.

---

I'm not asking anybody to believe me. I'm merely pointing out that these people and people like you will oppose common sense measures because you'd cut off your nose to spite the face. This is why you're engaging in a slipper slope argument, because you'd rather do that than argue against the bill on its own merit.

Nice bait, I've never sided with Islamists. Nice try. Again, demonstrating the absurd mentality of "not with us then against us".

Quote:

---

The purpose of the 2A is to ensure the security of a free State. If you believe that the prospective "existence of a tyrannical administration has nothing to do with the right to bear arms" then you're merely proving my point that people have a reason to be suspicious of your motives.

---

The stated purpose of the 2A can be whatever it wants. It has never stopped a tyrannical state, nor is it necessary to do so. Stripping the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with my contempt for certain aspects of democracy and everything to do with basic public safety. Though you can keep parroting whatever justification you want. It doesn't make any difference in the end, you're on the side of people who are opposing basic background checks.

BRB, shrieking while I'm sacrificing a gun on the altar of scandinavianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

They're not opposing confiscation of arms because nobody is actually confiscating their arms en masse or wrote a bill to do so. They're opposing the laws listed, which they probably didn't even glance at.

---

As stated, they're opposing corrosive laws which, in this case, include intrusive red flag articles.

Quote:

---

You didn't demonstrate this, and I don't know where you're getting this from.

---

I've already demonstrated it to you in the Democratic primaries thread. Of course you blindly denied it on the basis that leftist tabloids like Vox were able to drag up some partisan "academics" who were willing to regurgitate the orange man bad line.

Quote:

---

I'm well aware about the differences between an extermination camp and a concentration camp.

---

Yeah, because I've just told you.

Quote:

---

I'm not an authority to lecture anybody on the subject because I'm not an expert on the subject matter.

---

Then stop doing it?

Quote:

---

Yet many people who are, find the term perfectly admissible.

---

Appeal to authority.

Quote:

---

I'm not asking anybody to believe me.

---

Just as well really.

Quote:

---

I'm merely pointing out that these people and people like you will oppose common sense measures because you'd cut off your nose to spite the face.

---

No, I oppose your so-called "common sense" measures because we all know very well that "progressives" will inevitably use them as platform for launching the next wave of restrictions.

Quote:

---

This is why you're engaging in a slipper slope argument, because you'd rather do that than argue against the bill on its own merit.

---

As I said, only fools would believe that liberals have limiting principles on firearms.

Quote:

---

Nice bait, I've never sided with Islamists. Nice try. Again, demonstrating the absurd mentality of "not with us then against us".

---

We've all read your desperate excuses for the regime in Tehran and its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. People can read the thread if they want, though your accord with the Iranians over their use of force against the western powers speaks for itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

The use of force against United States and its allies is justified by decades of belligerence by those players against Iran.

---

Quote:

---

The stated purpose of the 2A can be whatever it wants.

---

The 2A isn't a flexible, self-governing entity. It's a clear right enshrined in the Constitution.

Quote:

---

It has never stopped a tyrannical state, nor is it necessary to do so.

---

In admitting that you have no attachment in principle to the 2A, you're justifying the belief that you'll happily see it eroded into dust via incrementalism - which of course you would.

Quote:

---

Stripping the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with my contempt for certain aspects of democracy and everything to do with basic public safety.

---

Again, this is the same argument you will make at every stage of restrictions. And that's why supporters of the 2A are loathed to trust liberals with Constitutional rights. Trying to appease people with no limiting principles is a waste of time; persistent opposition is an appropriate response.

Quote:

---

Though you can keep parroting whatever justification you want. It doesn't make any difference in the end, you're on the side of people who are opposing basic background checks.

---

Whilst you're on the side of people who dismiss the wisdom of the founders because, as always, young progressives know better than everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

As a comedic tidbit,



I was actually referring to concentration camps and not extermination camps. Admittedly the "gas chamber" remark wasn't meant to insinuate that Trump is planning to kill migrants and to point to extermination camps specifically, merely to make the reference to Nazi Germany very clear. Though since ep1c_fail decided to resort to semantics and pedantry again, I decided to google gas chambers just for fun.

From the US Holocaust Museum

https://i.imgur.com/RJ1GsTr.png

Not that this whole tangent is interesting to me. I just thought it was an entirely irrelevant potshot and at worst, this is accusing me of calling a toad, a frog.

---

Just to respond to this retrospective try-harding: the purpose of highlighting the difference between extermination camps and concentration camps was to rebuke your knavish suggestion that I (or anyone else) believes that gas chambers are a mandatory feature of concentration camps. Despite your insinuation, no one is claiming that the border detention facilitates oughtn't be considered concentration camps because they lack killing chambers.

Of course, by pointing out that certain concentration camps did have gas chambers, you're only serving to illustrate how ludicrous your claims about the detention facilitates actually are. So congratulations for that.

Your original comment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

I too, believe, that mass incarceration of civilians without a trial is definitely not a concentration camp. After all, they don't have gas chambers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

As stated, they're opposing corrosive laws which, in this case, include intrusive red flag articles.

---

Didn't realize background checks for gun purchases were corrosive. Nor did I realize that the government shouldn't be able to confiscate firearms from people who want to shoot up schools.

Quote:

---

I've already demonstrated it to you in the Democratic primaries thread. Of course you blindly denied it on the basis that leftist tabloids like Vox were able to drag up some partisan "academics" who were willing to regurgitate the orange man bad line.

---

You can assume that if you want, the onus on proving that they are partisan is on you. Of course I suppose one could argue that siding with a Democrat for any reason is already blindly partisan.

Quote:

---

Yeah, because I've just told you.

---

It's not my fault you immediately thought I was referencing extermination camps.

Quote:

---

Then stop doing it?

---

Nobody was lecturing you. You're the one who brought up "concentration camps".

Quote:

---

Appeal to authority.

---

You're the one who's claiming it's inaccurate.

Quote:

---

No, I oppose your so-called "common sense" measures because we all know very well that "progressives" will inevitably use them as platform for launching the next wave of restrictions.

---

Lol okay. No to background checks.

Quote:

---

As I said, only fools would believe that liberals have limiting principles on firearms.

---

Only fools seek them for the purpose of dethroning a tyranny.

Quote:

---

We've all read your desperate excuses for the regime in Tehran and its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. People can read the thread if they want, though your accord with the Iranians over their use of force against the western powers speaks for itself.

---

Your inability to comprehend my stance on Iran and the Middle East has been noted. As has been your selective quoting.

Quote:

---

The 2A isn't a flexible, self-governing entity. It's a clear right enshrined in the Constitution.

---

This doesn't address a shred of what I said.

Quote:

---

In admitting that you have no attachment in principle to the 2A, you're justifying the belief that you'll happily see it eroded into dust via incrementalism - which of course you would.

---

Whether I am a progressive who seeks to take away guns, which I'm not, I'm actually pro gun, the fact that 2A zealots would oppose common sense measures for the sake of opposing liberals is far more abhorrent than any agenda I could dream up. You can continue to support this slippery slope nonsense, it doesn't make the opposition any more idiotic.

Quote:

---

Again, this is the same argument you will make at every stage of restrictions. And that's why supporters of the 2A are loathed to trust liberals with Constitutional rights.

---

This is the same argument that should be made at every stage that's not wrong on its own merit. Otherwise, following that logic, we should be dismantling everything form the ATF to Social Security because those can be used as a platform for a big brother state.

Quote:

---

Whilst you're on the side of people who dismiss the wisdom of the founders because, as always, young progressives know better than everyone.

---

Not at all. I simply refuse to assume that people who are long dead are correct about everything. Especially when their "wisdom" on the issue of the 2nd amendment has failed to materialize over hundreds of years. I think the testing period on that feature has been long enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Just to respond to this retrospective try-harding: the purpose of highlighting the difference between extermination camps and concentration camps was to rebuke your knavish suggestion that I (or anyone else) believes that gas chambers are a mandatory feature of concentration camps and that it is for this reason that the border detention facilitates could not fall into that category .

---

Sure it was. The only reason I brought it up was because your accusation suggested that concentration camps cannot have gas chambers, and that only extermination camps did. I actually thought so for a moment after your brought up extermination camps which is why I Googled it. Turns out no, I wasn't wrong, and my reference to the gas chambers in order to make the German reference clear wasn't inaccurate. So your accusation really is out of nowhere, though not out of character. As is this ridiculous tendency to break up posts into tiny, little pieces that are unintelligeble to anyone who isn't following the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

Didn't realize background checks for gun purchases were corrosive.

---

There are plenty of things which you don't realize.

Quote:

---

Nor did I realize that the government shouldn't be able to confiscate firearms from people who want to shoot up schools.

---

Because of course, that's what the legislation says isn't it?

Quote:

---

You can assume that if you want, the onus on proving that they are partisan is on you. Of course I suppose one could argue that siding with a Democrat for any reason is already blindly partisan.

---

I've already illustrated the point in another thread. The term "concentration camps" was deliberately used with reference to the border facilities in attempt to create a phony emotional link between the Trump administration and Nazi Germany. In the minds of progressives, there is no distinction between a desire for border management and fascism and/or race hate and the liberal press do love an opportunity to spread a moral panic.

Quote:

---

It's not my fault you immediately thought I was referencing extermination camps.

---

I immediately thought that you didn't know the difference between a concentration camp and an extermination camp. And I was right.

Quote:

---

Nobody was lecturing you. You're the one who brought up "concentration camps".

---

How is that I knew you believed that the border detention facilitates were "concentration camps"?

Quote:

---

You're the one who's claiming it's inaccurate.

---

Which it is.

Quote:

---

Lol okay. No to background checks.

---

Correct. If, as and when you demonstrate your commitment to the 2A in principle then we can discuss firearm limits in good faith. Until then, you'll have to accept that you (and others like you) simply aren't trusted.

Quote:

---

Only fools seek them for the purpose of dethroning a tyranny.

---

You mean like the founding revolutionaries? I feel almost embarrassed to tell you that even your buddy Karl Marx was an even more ardent proponent of an armed citizenry than I am.

Quote:

---

Your inability to comprehend my stance on Iran and the Middle East has been noted. As has been your selective quoting.

---

Your "stance" on Iran is the default hard left, social justice position which seeks to justify violence against the US and Israel via whatabouterry and on the basis of alleged "oppression". There's nothing complex to "comprehend" about it.

Quote:

---

This doesn't address a shred of what I said.

---

You claimed that "the stated purpose of the 2A can be whatever it wants to be" as if to imply that amendment somehow had agency. It doesn't. The stated purpose of the 2A is to protect the free State.

Quote:

---

Whether I am a progressive who seeks to take away guns, which I'm not, I'm actually pro gun

---

Well you've openly conceded that you have no interest in the 2A in principle - which must mean that you're so-called "pro-gun" position is derived from something else. What is it?

Quote:

---

the fact that 2A zealots would oppose common sense measures for the sake of opposing liberals is far more abhorrent than any agenda I could dream up. You can continue to support this slippery slope nonsense, it doesn't make the opposition any more idiotic.

---

And you can keep denying the incrementalist objectives of the left.

Quote:

---

This is the same argument that should be made at every stage that's not wrong on its own merit. Otherwise, following that logic, we should be dismantling everything form the ATF to Social Security because those can be used as a platform for a big brother state.

---

Some people would argue that. For my part, I don't see the existence of social security - unlike the persistent attacks against the 2A (and 1A) as being a threat to the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Not at all. I simply refuse to assume that people who are long dead are correct about everything. Especially when their "wisdom" on the issue of the 2nd amendment has failed to materialize over hundreds of years. I think the testing period on that feature has been long enough.

---

Personally I'd rather take the advice of men who founded one the most successful states in human history over know-it-all 21st century "social justice" leftists whose ideological raison d'etre is the denigration of said state *cough 1619*. That's just me though. Now prove that the absence of tyrannical government over the past 250 years isn't a partial result of the existence of the 2A.

Quote:

---

Sure it was. The only reason I brought it up was because your accusation suggested that concentration camps cannot have gas chambers, and that only extermination camps did. I actually thought so for a moment after your brought up extermination camps which is why I Googled it. Turns out no, I wasn't wrong, and my reference to the gas chambers in order to make the German reference clear wasn't inaccurate. So your accusation really is out of nowhere, though not out of character.

---

Stop digging a hole. Retrospective Google searches to find a technical "win" won't convince me that you know what you're talking about (especially given your previous comments). Just take the L and move on.

Quote:

---

As is this ridiculous tendency to break up posts into tiny, little pieces that are unintelligeble to anyone who isn't following the conversation.

---

Well if you didn't make so many vacuous points I wouldn't have to rebuke them all would I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

There are plenty of things which you don't realize.

---

Do tell. How are background checks for gun purchases corrosive?

Quote:

---

Because of course, that's what the legislation says isn't it?

---

As far as you know.

Quote:

---

I've already illustrated the point in another thread. The term "concentration camps" was deliberately used with reference to the border facilities in attempt to create a phony emotional link between the Trump administration and Nazi Germany. In the minds of progressives, there is no distinction between a desire for border management and fascism and/or race hate and the liberal press do love an opportunity to spread a moral panic.

---

Like I said, because it hurts your sensibilities, not because incarceration of civilians is wrong. Yes, you've played this violin in another thread before.

Quote:

---

I immediately thought that you didn't know the difference between a concentration camp and an extermination camp. And I was right.

---

Sure you were.

Quote:

---

How is that I knew you believed that the border detention facilitates were "concentration camps"?

---

Because you brought it up in the first place.

Quote:

---

Which it is.

---

I'm well aware that of your opinion.

Quote:

---

Correct. If, as and when you demonstrate your commitment to the 2A in principle then we can discuss firearm limits in good faith. Until then, you'll have to accept that you (and others like you) simply aren't trusted.

---

I'm not the one being trusted. State government is, which changes regularly. With elections. Not that anything will stop people from opposing basic background checks introduced by a Democrat.

Quote:

---

You mean like the founding revolutionaries? I feel almost embarrassed to tell you that even your buddy Karl Marx was an even more ardent proponent of an armed citizenry than I am.

---

Amusing. This would be relevant if I argued to disarm the military. Funny, calling Marx my buddy.

Quote:

---

Your "stance" on Iran is the default hard left, social justice position which seeks to justify violence against the US and Israel via whatabouterry and on the basis of alleged "oppression". There's nothing complex to "comprehend" about it.

---

Wrong. And pointing out the intricacies of the Iran-US relationship is not whataboutery. This would be akin to referencing the creation of Israel as whataboutery when talking about Palestinian insurgents.

Quote:

---

You claimed that "the stated purpose of the 2A can be whatever it wants to be" as if to imply that amendment somehow had agency. It doesn't. The stated purpose of the 2A is to protect the free State.

---

No I didn't. I claimed that the "stated purpose of the 2A can be whatever it wants to be" to highlight that it is irrelevant what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is. The only thing the 2A has accomplished, is getting more guns in civilian hands, and consequently, out into the streets.

Quote:

---

Well you've openly conceded that you have no interest in the 2A in principle - which must mean that you're so-called "pro-gun" position is derived from something else. What is it?

---

Absolutely not. I am pro gun because firearms can be used as responsible, recreational weapons when well-regulated. I think some regulations need to be repealed, while many others need to be added.

Quote:

---

And you can keep denying the incrementalist objectives of the left.

---

You can keep claiming that it is. The reality is that you are opposing common sense legislation and efforts to improve public safety. Because "libruls".

Quote:

---

Some people would argue that. For my part, I don't see the existence of social security - unlike the persistent attacks against the 2A (and 1A) as being a threat to the Constitution.

---

Attacks on the 2nd amendment aren't a threat to the Constitution. The Constitution is meant to be an evolving document. That's why the amendments are there in the first place.

Quote:

---

Personally I'd rather take the advice of men who founded one the most successful states in human history over know-it-all 21st century "social justice" leftists whose ideological raison d'etre is the denigration of said state *cough 1619*. That's just me though.

---

You'd take advice of people who died in the 18th-19th century and have next to no knowledge about the workings of the modern state. You're not even taking their "advice". You're blatantly piggybacking off the reputation of the people who wrote a document that had to be amended a number of times to justify opposition to basic gun control. All to appease your distaste for anything that smells of "leftism", whatever the hell that is.

Quote:

---

Now prove that the absence of tyrannical government over the past 250 years isn't a partial result of the existence of the 2A.

---

I'm not going to prove a negative to you. On the other hand, I doubt you'll find any major event in American history where the 2nd amendment has played an important part.

Quote:

---

Stop digging a hole. Retrospective Google searches to find a technical "win" won't convince me that you know what you're talking about (especially given your previous comments). Just take the L and move on.

---

Take your own advice. You're the one who started this whole charade, and then accused me of confusing concentration and extermination camps when you're the one who jumped the gun. You're still pursuing this ridiculous tangent, and I'm assuming that it's simply for the sake of getting the last word in. I've already explained my word choice and the subsequent exchange. But go ahead and keep flapping about how I don't know something or how I'm googling something as if it's relevant to the thread instead of your own ego.

Quote:

---

Well if you didn't make so many vacuous points I wouldn't have to rebuke them all would I?

---

Yeah, you're doing real good with telling me all about your beliefs and opinions as if they are facts. Tell us some more about "partisan" historians and your bulletproof process of authenticating their credentials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Personally I'd rather take the advice of men who founded one the most successful states in human history over know-it-all 21st century "social justice" leftists whose ideological raison d'etre is the denigration of said state *cough 1619*. That's just me though. Now prove that the absence of tyrannical government over the past 250 years isn't a partial result of the existence of the 2A.

---

Was scandinavianism founded in 1619?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

Do tell. How are background checks for gun purchases corrosive?

---

As explained above, what's being resisted is the liberal incrementalism.

Quote:

---

As far as you know.

---

Glad you've conceded that's not what the legislation says.

Quote:

---

Like I said, because it hurts your sensibilities, not because incarceration of civilians is wrong.

---

Civilians are incarcerated all the time. Tens of thousands of them are in jail right now either being processed, awaiting trial or serving short sentences. Holding people temporarily until a determination with respect to their citizenship/residence status can be made isn't "wrong", its one of the most practical solutions for managing migratory flows. The US has borders, get over it.

Quote:

---

Yes, you've played this violin in another thread before.

---

You're the one playing the "violin" by appropriating the language of the Holocaust to justify destroying reasonable and necessary immigration controls.

Quote:

---

Sure you were.

---

As is evidence by your initial "wah no one cares about your semantics" response to the distinction I drew between extermination and concentration camps, I think it's pretty clear that you were unaware of the difference.

Quote:

---

Because you brought it up in the first place.

---

Wrong. It's because you gave a bleeding heart speech in another thread where you sought create a ludicrous comparison between the forced labor camps of WW2 where thousands of people were worked to death, starved, perished of disease or were otherwise executed with border detention facilities in the US.

Quote:

---

I'm well aware that of your opinion.

---

The misery of the SS's labor camps are actually well documented. I can guarantee you that the conditions at the US border are barely comparable.

Quote:

---

I'm not the one being trusted. State government is, which changes regularly. With elections. Not that anything will stop people from opposing basic background checks introduced by a Democrat.

---

If the Democrats ditched the incrementalism, they'd be trusted.

Quote:

---

Amusing. This would be relevant if I argued to disarm the military.

---

Ah, I see we're going to play a semantic dance where if you argue that the revolutionaries were the military that disproves the need for an armed citizenry, even though the colonial militas were in effect, armed subjects.

Quote:

---

Funny, calling Marx my buddy.

---

Maybe if you stopped, "parroting talking points" (as you like to say) from social justice leftists and swooning over the contributions of Marxist thought, people wouldn't suppose your allegiance to the man himself.

Quote:

---

Wrong.

---

Not wrong.

Quote:

---

And pointing out the intricacies of the Iran-US relationship is not whataboutery. This would be akin to referencing the creation of Israel as whataboutery when talking about Palestinian insurgents.

---

Even if you knew the "intricacies of the Iran-US" relationship, that still didn't stop you repeatedly referring to the actions of Israel, SA, Turkey and others to justify Iran's behaviour. Not that it matters anyway: as everyone can see by reading the thread, Legio_Italica put you to bed comfortably on the details.

Quote:

---

No I didn't. I claimed that the "stated purpose of the 2A can be whatever it wants to be" to highlight that it is irrelevant what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is. The only thing the 2A has accomplished, is getting more guns in civilian hands, and consequently, out into the streets.

---

Good. Civilians owning firearms is a great way of limiting state overreach.

Quote:

---

Absolutely not. I am pro gun because firearms can be used as responsible, recreational weapons when well-regulated. I think some regulations need to be repealed, while many others need to be added.

---

The point of the 2A isn't "recreational" use: that's a beneficial ancillary feature, nothing more.

Quote:

---

You can keep claiming that it is. The reality is that you are opposing common sense legislation and efforts to improve public safety. Because "libruls" can't be trusted not to use restrictions as a form of incrementalism

---

Fixed that for you.

Quote:

---

Attacks on the 2nd amendment aren't a threat to the Constitution. The Constitution is meant to be an evolving document. That's why the amendments are there in the first place.

---

Then propose an amendment to override the 2nd. rather than constantly trying to vandalise it into oblivion.

Quote:

---

You'd take advice of people who died in the 18th-19th century and have next to no knowledge about the workings of the modern state. You're not even taking their "advice". You're blatantly piggybacking off the reputation of the people who wrote a document that had to be amended a number of times to justify opposition to basic gun control.

---

They had enough knowledge to create a founding document and Bill of Rights which provides one of, if not the, single best frameworks for a prosperous civil society in all of human history.

Quote:

---

All to appease your distaste for anything that smells of "leftism", whatever the hell that is.

---

If my deference to the Constitution puts me at odds with "leftism" then so be it.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to prove a negative to you. On the other hand, I doubt you'll find any major event in American history where the 2nd amendment has played an important part.

---

It's not a coincidence that the armed sections of the US population haven't suffered anywhere near the indignities of state abuse that have been suffered by unarmed groups (Jews, Indians, Irish, Russians etc.) worldwide.

Quote:

---

Take your own advice. You're the one who started this whole charade, and then accused me of confusing concentration and extermination camps when you're the one who jumped the gun. You're still pursuing this ridiculous tangent, and I'm assuming that it's simply for the sake of getting the last word in. I've already explained my word choice and the subsequent exchange. But go ahead and keep flapping about how I don't know something or how I'm googling something as if it's relevant to the thread instead of your own ego.

---

TL;DR. Take the L.

Quote:

---

Yeah, you're doing real good with telling me all about your beliefs and opinions as if they are facts. Tell us some more about "partisan" historians and your bulletproof process of authenticating their credentials.

---

The fact that you haven't even mentioned any of these so-called historians by name proves my point. At best you'd come up with some technical win which still wouldn't justify the obvious appeal to the Holocaust that the concentration camp comparison is designed to draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gromovnik

Was scandinavianism founded in 1619?

---

:laughter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Then propose an amendment to override the 2nd. rather than constantly trying to vandalise it into oblivion.

---

Why? Heller v. DC solved that answer already. I'll post it since no one wants to bother to read it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

Quote:

---

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

---

Limiting the 2nd Amendment is perfectly Constitutional. No need for another amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

It's not a coincidence that the armed sections of the US population haven't suffered anywhere near the indignities of state abuse that have been suffered by unarmed groups (Jews, Indians, Irish, Russians etc.) worldwide.

---

Native Americans were armed. That didn't stop them from being massacred and forced onto reservations and their children being taken away from them. Even African-Americans were allowed to own firearms after slavery. That didn't stop segregation or Jim Crow. It didn't stop them from being lynched by racist white mobs who ironically could also be armed. The even faintest idea guns are what is keeping my government at bay is utterly ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanoi

Why? Heller v. DC solved that answer already. I'll post it since no one wants to bother to read it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

Limiting the 2nd Amendment is perfectly Constitutional. No need for another amendment.

---

I didn't say that limiting the 2nd. amendment was illegal. That doesn't mean I have to trust liberals (many of whom are incrementalists who seem to think that 2A was designed to facilitate hunting or sport shooting) to draw the line. That's why, broadly speaking, they should be legally resisted wherever and whenever possible.

Quote:

---

Native Americans were armed. That didn't stop them from being massacred and forced onto reservations and their children being taken away from them. Even African-Americans were allowed to own firearms after slavery. That didn't stop segregation or Jim Crow. It didn't stop them from being lynched by racist white mobs who ironically could also be armed. that even faintest idea guns are what is keeping my government at bay is utterly ridiculous.

---

Just because armed groups/individuals can be subjugated doesn't prove that being armed doesn't work, either as form of deterrence or resistance. The natives may have been doomed from the start, but I'm sure that many (if not most) would have preferred to die fighting rather than rolling over and accepting their humiliation unopposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

As explained above, what's being resisted is the liberal incrementalism.

---

Indeed, and that explanation was addressed. Expressing your "resistance" by opposing simple background checks on gun purchases is idiotic.

Quote:

---

Glad you've conceded that's not what the legislation says.

---

Glad you chose to ignore the point and opt for pedantry, as usual.

Quote:

---

Civilians are incarcerated all the time. Tens of thousands of them are in jail right now either being processed, awaiting trial or serving short sentences. Holding people temporarily until a determination with respect to their citizenship/residence status can be made isn't "wrong", its one of the most practical solutions for managing migratory flows. The US has borders, get over it.

---

Civilians have a right to trial and aren't held indefinitely. Families aren't typically separated en masse nor are children thrown into cages. That's not regular conduct. There is nothing practical about holding tens of thousands of people, most of whom are harmless, in camps paid for by the taxpayer for no other purpose than to indulge the President's inflammatory rhetoric. The United States does have border, thank you for pointing out that irrelevant fact.

Quote:

---

You're the one playing the "violin" by appropriating the language of the Holocaust to justify destroying reasonable and necessary immigration controls.

---

I didn't appropriate anything. I simply understand the point being made, rounding up tens of thousands of people and holding them in sub-standard conditions for no reason than their migration status is wrong. The one crying about how the referencing the Holocaust hurts your feelings is you.

Quote:

---

As is evidence by your initial "wah no one cares about your semantics" response to the distinction I drew between extermination and concentration camps, I think it's pretty clear that you were unaware of the difference.

---

Sure.

"The only reason I brought it up was because your accusation suggested that concentration camps cannot have gas chambers, and that only extermination camps did. I actually thought so for a moment after your brought up extermination camps which is why I Googled it."

Congratulations, you did confuse me. If only because your knee-jerk reaction forced me to actually look for it.

Quote:

---

Wrong. It's because you gave a bleeding heart speech in another thread where you sought create a ludicrous comparison between the forced labor camps of WW2 where thousands of people were worked to death, starved, perished of disease or were otherwise executed with border detention facilities in the US.

---

And I'm sure you gave an equally desperate insistence that the word "concentration camp" is being cheapened and is offensive to Jewish survivors. Yes, I'm well aware that you don't care about the people being detained by the Trump administration. That's not the issue, referencing the Holocaust is.

Quote:

---

The misery of the SS's labor camps are actually well documented. I can guarantee you that the conditions at the US border are barely comparable.

---

And I assure you, the Nazis didn't copyright the word "concentration camp".

Quote:

---

If the Democrats ditched the incrementalism, they'd be trusted.

---

And if Republicans actually did something, maybe something would get done.

Quote:

---

Ah, I see we're going to play a semantic dance where if you argue that the revolutionaries were the military that disproves the need for an armed citizenry, even though the colonial militas were in effect, armed subjects.

---

You tell me. You're the one who started this idiotic trend. Though yes, go on. Tell us how the firearms hidden in their closets, rather than the other 99% of the war effort was responsible for overthrowing the British. Whom I struggle to call tyrannical by the standards of that time.

Quote:

---

Maybe if you stopped, "parroting talking points" (as you like to say) from social justice leftists and swooning over the contributions of Marxist thought, people wouldn't suppose your allegiance to the man himself.

---

Talking points that are in opposition yours, aren't automatically Marxist. Nor is recognizing Marx's contributions to society somehow marking me as a Marxist.

Quote:

---

Not wrong.

---

Uh huh. You're going to tell me what my stance is and what ideological spectrum it occupies? You don't even know what my stance on Iran is rofl.

Quote:

---

Even if you knew the "intricacies of the Iran-US" relationship, that still didn't stop you repeatedly referring to the actions of Israel, SA, Turkey and others to justify Iran's behaviour. Not that it matters anyway: as everyone can see by reading the thread, Legio_Italica put you to bed comfortably on the details.

---

Non-sequitur. Try harder.

Quote:

---

Good. Civilians owning firearms is a great way of limiting state overreach.

---

Sure it is. Tell us more about it. Well? Any notable examples?

Quote:

---

The point of the 2A isn't "recreational" use: that's a beneficial ancillary feature, nothing more.

---

It's only feature. It has yet to depose any tyrants or make any mark on US history that's not related to school shootings.

Quote:

---

Fixed that for you.

---

Still waiting on how background checks for firearm purchases are going to be corrosive. Don't think I'm going to get the answer to this one.

Quote:

---

Then propose an amendment to override the 2nd. rather than constantly trying to vandalise it into oblivion.

---

"Vandalize it". Yes, people are definitely unable to buy firearms.

Quote:

---

They had enough knowledge to create a founding document and Bill of Rights which provides one of, if not the, single best frameworks for a prosperous civil society in all of human history.

---

In its original form, it has allowed one of the longest apartheid in modern history. But your worship of people who deliberately permitted slavery is noted. In fact, I can see why that sort of elitism and negligence would appeal to you.

Quote:

---

If my deference to the Constitution puts me at odds with "leftism" then so be it.

---

Yeah, "leftism".

Quote:

---

It's not a coincidence that the armed sections of the US population haven't suffered anywhere near the indignities of state abuse that have been suffered by unarmed groups (Jews, Indians, Irish, Russians etc.) worldwide.

---

Ah, you mean the White population? Indeed, it's not a coincidence.

Quote:

---

TL;DR. Take the L.

---

I have no reason to.

Quote:

---

The fact that you haven't even mentioned any of these so-called historians by name proves my point. At best you'd come up with some technical win which still wouldn't justify the obvious appeal to the Holocaust that the concentration camp comparison is designed to draw.

---

I'm not going to bother doing the work for you. You're the one who brought up this tangent to begin with, if you want to make some sort of snarky point, be a dear and do the Googling yourself. That said, your preemptive admission of defeat is appreciated.

I take it back guys. Someone reminded me that the 2A was very useful in deposing a tyrant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I didn't say that limiting the 2nd. amendment was illegal. That doesn't mean I have to trust liberals (many of whom are incrementalists who seem to think that 2A was designed to facilitate hunting or sport shooting) to draw the line. That's why, broadly speaking, they should be legally resisted wherever and whenever possible.

---

And they can be to a point. The above Supreme Court case affirmed an American's right to own a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense. 2nd Amendment is protected to a point and even if liberals want to, they couldn't simply get rid of it.

At this point it simply comes down to what is and what is not a fair amount of regulation and restriction when regarding firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Just because armed groups/individuals can be subjugated doesn't prove that being armed doesn't work, either as form of deterrence or resistance. The natives may have been doomed from the start, but I'm sure that many (if not most) would have preferred to die fighting rather than rolling over and accepting their humiliation unopposed.

---

In their case it didn't and it was you claiming that being armed allowed you to resist a tyrannical government. Many natives found out why it was useless to fight and stopped to save their people which was a wise decision. If you read the source i posted, the Supreme Court doesn't even mention resisting a tyrannical government as a lawful reason to own a firearm.

Regular citizenry being armed will not stop a real determined government who wishes to impose tyrannical rule. Even during the American Revolution militias did fight but they couldn't have done it alone without the Continental Army and foreign forces providing help. Using this as an argument for the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous when they are far more simple and reasonable intentions for owning a firearm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vanoi

And they can be to a point. The above Supreme Court case affirmed an American's right to own a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense. 2nd Amendment is protected to a point and even if liberals want to, they couldn't simply get rid of it.

At this point it simply comes down to what is and what is not a fair amount of regulation and restriction when regarding firearms.

---

I'm not disagreeing with that. I simply distrust liberals' motives and oppose their attempts to ban, among other weapons, assault rifles.

Quote:

---

In their case it didn't and it was you claiming that being armed allowed you to resist a tyrannical government.

---

They did resist the US government for many years. In the end they lost.

Quote:

---

Many natives found out why it was useless to fight and stopped to save their people which was a wise decision.

---

That's not a justification for pursuing pacifism/subservience in the first place. Of course they stopped when it became futile to continue.

Quote:

---

If you read the source i posted, the Supreme Court doesn't even mention resisting a tyrannical government as a lawful reason to own a firearm.

---

So far as I'm concerned, resisting a tyrannical government falls under the category of self-defence. Though of course, were a rogue government to emerge, I doubt it would care much about what the SC had to say about anything.

Quote:

---

Regular citizenry being armed will not stop a real determined government who wishes to impose tyrannical rule. Even during the American Revolution militias did fight but they couldn't have done it alone without the Continental Army and foreign forces providing help. Using this as an argument for the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous when they are far more simple and reasonable intentions for owning a firearm.

---

There are too many unknown variables to determine whether an armed citizenry would be effective against the state under all, or even most circumstances. That doesn't mean that an armed populace is in an equal position to an unarmed populace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

I am pro gun because firearms can be used as responsible, recreational weapons when well-regulated. I think some regulations need to be repealed...

---

Which regulations need to be repealed?

Please respect the topic of the thread, which does not concern concentration or death camps. Also, bringing up what your interlocutor said in another discussion is considered a personal reference and will therefore be treated as a violation of the respective paragraph of the Terms of Service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infidel144

Which regulations need to be repealed?

---

Bans on high capacity magazines, Title II firearm classification, make state level gun laws that cover either one of those sections, illegal. That's for starters. Of course I'm also a proponent of heavy supply controls in regards to firearms so I doubt 2A supporters are going to support my position. I've written about this before, and my general position is that I am against restrictions on firearm types. Instead, I favor licensing, registration, and heavy oversight of FFLs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I'm not disagreeing with that. I simply distrust liberals' motives and oppose their attempts to ban, among other weapons, assault rifles.

---

You don't have to trust their motives, just their limitation in power. By what vehicle do you think the Libs could even touch the 2nd amendment? A new amendment? :laughter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

The horror. Banning firearms around government buildings. And why?

---

Why should they be banned? Should politician's security detail not have guns as well? What if some politician or his bodyguard decided to become violent?

Quote:

---

Totally unreasonable. Authoritarian! End of Democracy! What next? Will they demand licensing for simply driving out cars???? Just step one of a Big Brother nanny state!!!

---

Certain states don't even have any requirements for concealed carry, yet no apocalypse happened there. Its almost like guns aren't the problem.

Quote:

---

*Gasp*

How can Trump stand by and just watch while they blatantly tear the guns out of our arms because we threatened to storm the Richmond Capitol building with our AR-15s???

---

Or if someone who simply doesn't like you claims that you did.

Quote:

---

Let's abolish the ATF in its entirety.

---

We can't do that, where would violent drug cartels get their guns if there is no ATF to run "fast and furious" for them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

You don't have to trust their motives, just their limitation in power. By what vehicle do you think the Libs could even touch the 2nd amendment? A new amendment? :laughter:

---

I would rather they petitioned for a new amendment than kept up the charade that they believed in the 2A in principle. In any case, and as I've outlined, the libs. strategy for denigrating the 2A is incrementalism (the process of gradually introducing further restrictions over time).

My general position is that appeasing progressives gets you nothing except further demands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I would rather they petitioned for a new amendment than kept up the charade that they believed in the 2A in principle. In any case, and as I've outlined, the libs. strategy for denigrating the 2A is incrementalism (the process of gradually introducing further restrictions over time).

---

And how is this going for them Federally?

Concern of the 2nd amendment has got to be one of the biggest non-issues of all time; not only is there a lack of political will to go after the 2nd amendment, but there is no actual policy to suggest to "get rid of the guns". The cat is already out bag; the guns are everywhere. What would a anti-gun president even do? Demand local police to go door to door to seize guns from people? They will just laugh in the president's face at such an impossible idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

My general position is that appeasing progressives gets you nothing except further demands.

---

First you generously bestow upon women the right to vote, next thing you know they will be demanding to be considered intellectual equals. When will a draw a line!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

And how is this going for them Federally?

Concern of the 2nd amendment has got to be one of the biggest non-issues of all time; not only is there a lack of political will to go after the 2nd amendment, but there is no actual policy to suggest to "get rid of the guns". The cat is already out bag; the guns are everywhere. What would a anti-gun president even do? Demand local police to go door to door to seize guns from people? They will just laugh in the president's face at such an impossible idea.

---

That seemed to be O'Rourke's idea. Presumably its Sanders' scheme too.

Quote:

---

First you generously bestow upon women the right to vote, next thing you know they will be demanding to be considered intellectual equals. When will a draw a line!

---

The thousand year Trumpreich could have been yours :crying:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/LsnzckI.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

That seemed to be O'Rourke's idea. Presumably its Sanders' scheme too.

---

You're dreaming. Or are we just repeating the the "Obama is coming for your guns" rhetoric with a different coat of paint?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

The thousand year Trumpreich could have been yours :crying:

---

It would have at least limited the amount of moral degeneracy we are facing as a nation. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

You're dreaming. Or are we just repeating the the "Obama is coming for your guns" rhetoric with a different coat of paint?

---

Explain to me how this proposed federal ban on "assault weapons" is to be enforced then.

Quote:

---

It would have at least limited the amount of moral degeneracy we are facing as a nation. :yes:

---

The real counter reformation will be lead by his Holiness, Rick Perry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Explain to me how this proposed federal ban on "assault weapons" is to be enforced then.

---

It's probably not. Sounds like an unobtainable campaign position. Maybe he could ban the sale, but actually seizing guns back is deemed by pretty much all law enforcement as impossible, even if you had the will to do it (have shootouts between the police and the from-my-cold-dead-handers).

You can't seriously be worried that Bernie Sanders is going to sic the FBI on gun owners who have AR15s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

It's probably not. Sounds like an unobtainable campaign position. Maybe he could ban the sale, but actually seizing guns back is deemed by pretty much all law enforcement as impossible, even if you had the will to do it (have shootouts between the police and the from-my-cold-dead-handers).

You can't seriously be worried that Bernie Sanders is going to sic the FBI on gun owners who have AR15s.

---

So your argument is that people should just hope that Sanders lacks the ability to enforce his campaign pledges? How about no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

So your argument is that people should just hope that Sanders lacks the ability to enforce his campaign pledges? How about no.

---

The argument is that gun seizures are insanely extreme and impossible to implement. You don't even know what the exact position is, just "assault weapons ban" and then you jump to gun seizures, in the damn primaries of all places. At least wait to see what the campaign promises will be in the general. But yeah, I think it is safe to say Sanders would have no means or will to push for violent weapon seizures.

To be clear on your position here: you are saying that, based off of your assessment of the Sander's campaign website referring to an assault weapons ban, you are convinced that Sanders would implement a forceful weapon seizure program? How about no. Sounds like Obama gun hysteria all over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

The argument is that gun seizures are insanely extreme and impossible to implement. You don't even know what the exact position is, just "assault weapons ban" and then you jump to gun seizures, in the damn primaries of all places. At least wait to see what the campaign promises will be in the general. But yeah, I think it is safe to say Sanders would have no means or will to push for violent weapon seizures.

To be clear on your position here: you are saying that, based off of your assessment of the Sander's campaign website referring to an assault weapons ban, you are convinced that Sanders would implement a forceful weapon seizure program? How about no. Sounds like Obama gun hysteria all over again.

---

I already told you what my view is - that the libs. favor an incrementalist strategy on firearms. Whether or not Sanders supports an AR seizure plan is largely besides the point: minimally he'd attempt to ban the sale of assault rifles and then set up some sort of buy-back scheme (which could be mandatory). As far as I'm concerned, that's an affront to the 2A which will inevitably lead to attempts to introduce further restrictions later down the line. As I've said previously, lib. activists really don't have any limiting principles when it comes to curtailing Constitutional rights they don't like, so I would advise anyone who's in a position to resist them legally to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I already told you what my view is - that the libs. favor an incrementalist strategy on firearms. Whether or not Sanders supports an AR seizure plan is largely besides the point:

---

Right, and I asked you how this was going for them on a federal level and you brought up candidates in the Democratic primary. Is there some other thing going on federally that is an "incrementalist" jab at the 2nd amendment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

minimally he'd attempt to ban the sale of assault rifles and then set up some sort of buy-back scheme (which could be mandatory). As far as I'm concerned, that's an affront to the 2A which will inevitably lead to attempts to introduce further restrictions later down the line. As I've said previously, lib. activists really don't have any limiting principles when it comes to curtailing Constitutional rights they don't like, so I would advise anyone who's in a position to resist them legally to do so.

---

A mandatory buy-back is a seizure. Police would have to show up to take the guns of millions of Americans who don't want to sell their guns. That is an insane scenario that wouldn't happen bar some catastrophic event. But I am sure that is what every lib politician is clamoring for: thousands of new Ruby Ridges and Wacos.

I don't think you get to play this trick again after Obama. I mean, he was the anti-Christ after all and if he wasn't willing to pull the trigger (har har) on violent gun seizures, which the Right swore he would do over and over again, I don't know why you would think reasonable Americans would believe Bernie-:wub:ing-Sanders is going to initiate a violent gun seizure or "mandatory buy-back", all without a congressional bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

Right, and I asked you how this was going for them on a federal level and you brought up candidates in the Democratic primary. Is there some other thing going on federally that is an "incrementalist" jab at the 2nd amendment?

---

Of course I brought up the presidential candidates. The presidency is a key tool for introducing federal changes.

Quote:

---

A mandatory buy-back is a seizure. Police would have to show up to take the guns of millions of Americans who don't want to sell their guns. That is an insane scenario that wouldn't happen bar some catastrophic event. But I am sure that is what every lib politician is clamoring for: thousands of new Ruby Ridges and Wacos.

---

A mandatory buy-back isn't necessarily synonymous with police seizures. The state could easily institute a soft enforcement policy based on civil suits (garnered paychecks etc.) for registered owners who refuse to sell their weapons. You don't have to bust someone's door down to pressure them into compliance.

Quote:

---

I don't think you get to play this trick again after Obama. I mean, he was the anti-Christ after all, and if he wasn't willing to pull the trigger (har har) on violent gun seizures, which the Right swore he would do over and over again, I don't know why you would think reasonable Americans would believe Bernie-:wub:ing-Sanders is going to initiate a violent gun seizure or "mandatory buy-back".

---

As I said, it doesn't even matter if the buy-back is mandatory. The plan to institute a federal ban on the sale of ARs is enough, in and of itself, to make any constitutionalist recoil. And as usual, the liberal meddling isn't even predicated on a rational analysis of gun violence in the US: the vast majority of firearm related homicides (and suicides) including mass-shootings involve handguns, not assault rifles. So anyone with half a brain can see where this is going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Of course I brought up the presidential candidates. The presidency is a key tool for introducing federal changes.

---

Right, you seem to have very little evidence for the "incremental" take down of the 2nd amendment. Your current pitch is that certain primary candidates would just violate it if they got the presidency, presumably all without judicial or congressional involvement. Seems pretty far fetched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

A mandatory buy-back isn't necessarily synonymous with police seizures. The state could easily institute a soft enforcement policy based on civil suits (garnered paychecks etc.) for registered owners who refuse to sell their weapons. You don't have to bust someone's door down to pressure them into compliance.

---

All of which would be fairly extreme itself and still not going get the guns. Do you know how many thousands of Americans would still hold on to their AR15 regardless of the civil suits you put to them? They wouldn't comply and it would just be a disaster of a policy. This isn't a secret, there is no practical way to go about "getting the guns"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

As I said, it doesn't even matter if the buy-back is mandatory. The plan to institute a federal ban on the sale of ARs is enough, in and of itself, to make any constitutionalist recoil.

---

And yet we had that one before that wasn't challenged by SCOTUS. They also seem to have no issue with State and local laws banning "assault weapons" as they denied appeals that challenge those laws; apparently they don't consider it necessarily a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Maybe it's just something you are super snowflakey on? Are you even an American citizen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

And as usual, the liberal meddling isn't even predicated on a rational analysis of gun violence in the US: the vast majority of firearm related homicides (and suicides) including mass-shootings involved handguns, not assault rifles. So anyone with half a brain can see where this is going.

---

"Obama's gonna do it you guys! He's coming for your guns!"

We can see where this is going indeed. We've done it before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

Right, you seem to have very little evidence for the "incremental" take down of the 2nd amendment. Your current pitch is that certain primary candidates would just violate it if they got the presidency, presumably all without judicial and congressional involvement. Seems pretty far fetched.

---

I'm pointing out what the libs. want to do, not what it would be easy for them to achieve. No 2A advocate should be coaxed from the high ground by disingenuous reassurances about the alleged difficulty of getting AR restrictions on the books at a federal level. It has happened before you know.

Quote:

---

All of which would be fairly extreme itself and still not going get the guns. Do you know how many thousands of Americans would still hold on to their AR15 regardless of the civil suits you put to them? They wouldn't comply and it would just be a disaster of a policy. This isn't a secret, there is no practical way to go about "getting the guns"

---

I agree that it would be extreme, but ridding the US of ARs is clearly the intention of Sanders and many other progs. Of course I'm not going to react with glee at their scheming. It's a bit like Trump's "Muslim shutdown": everyone knew it would be difficult to enact, but they were pissed off that he would even try. In the end he got a half-measure.

Quote:

---

And yet we had that one before that wasn't challenged by SCOTUS. They also seem to have no issue with State and local laws banning "assault weapons" as they denied appeals that challenge those laws; apparently they don't consider it necessarily a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

---

Ah, so you did know. Well if I thought that banning AR sales would be struck down as unconstitutional, this conversation would be largely pointless. I'd simply say "Sanders' proposals are unconstitutional".

Quote:

---

Maybe it's just something you are super snowflakey on?

---

:laughter:

Quote:

---

Are you even an American citizen?

---

Questioning my citizenship status is a microaggression.

Quote:

---

"Obama's gonna do it you guys! He's coming for your guns!"

---

I don't know why you think I hate Pres. Obama. I admit that I find hiding my irritation at his groupies difficult, but I for the most part I don't think he was a poor leader.

Quote:

---

We can see where this is going indeed. We've done it before.

---

The Wiki article you cited referring to the prior ban supports my observation that banning the sale of ARs would have minimal effects on crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I'm pointing out what the libs. want to do, not what it would be easy for them to achieve.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

You don't have to trust their motives, just their limitation in power. By what vehicle do you think the Libs could even touch the 2nd amendment? A new amendment? :laughter:

---

And then something something about how progressives want to seize guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

No 2A advocate should be coaxed from the high ground by disingenuous reassurances about the alleged difficulty of getting AR restrictions on the books at a federal level. It has happened before you know.

---

You do know the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had nothing to do with removing guns already in circulation, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I agree that it would be extreme, but ridding the US of ARs is clearly the intention of Sanders and many other progs.

---

Where are you getting "ridding the US of ARs" from? That's way different than banning their production for consumer sale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Ah, so you did know. Well if I thought that banning AR sales would be struck down as unconstitutional, this conversation would be largely pointless. I'd simply say "Sanders' proposals are unconstitutional".

---

Which are, specifically speaking, what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Questioning my citizenship status is a microaggression.

---

You seem so paranoid about laws that don't even apply to you. Like an SJW being offended for somebody else,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I don't know why you think I hate Pres. Obama. I admit that I find hiding my irritation at his groupies difficult, but I for the most part I don't think he was a poor leader.

---

Why does that matter? Fear mongering over gun bans is still a tried and true tactic that amounts to a nothing burger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

The Wiki article you cited referring to the prior ban supports my observation that banning the sale of ARs would have minimal effects on crime.

---

Of course it has a minimal effect on crime. What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

And then something something about how progressives want to seize guns.

---

I'm not sure what you're getting at. My acknowledgement of the incrementalist strategy is an implicit acknowledgement that the libs. are limited in what they can do in one move. That's why their strategy is incremental. That doesn't mean that I can't discuss Sanders' plan at face value (you're the one who brought up weapon seizures, which I tried to downplay as unlikely).

Quote:

---

You do know the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had nothing to do with removing guns already in circulation, right?

---

Who said it did? Sleepy Joe's idea is to reintroduce the ban and force everyone with an AR to register it with the ATF.

Quote:

---

Where are you getting "ridding the US of ARs" from? That's way different than banning their production for consumer sale.

Which are, specifically speaking, what?

---

The relevant highlights:

- Stop the sale of assault rifles.
- Set up a buy-back scheme.
- Regulate assault rifles in a way which makes them unlawful to own.

Quote:

---

You seem so paranoid about laws that don't even apply to you. Like an SJW being offended for somebody else,

---

:laughter:

Quote:

---

Why does that matter? Fear mongering over gun bans is still a tried and true tactic that amounts to a nothing burger.

---

I'm posting the stated policies of the Dem. candidates and you call it fear mongering. That's funny.

Quote:

---

Of course it has a minimal effect on crime. What's your point?

---

That the stated purpose for proposing an AR ban (safety) would be largely ineffective. But they're going to do it anyway because its a stepping stone to the next phase. And once they've banned the sale of ARs, forced every owner onto a register and instituted buy-backs, they aint gonna stop there.

Objectively gun control is a slippery slope - as it has been in almost everywhere it was implemented in the West.
Of course this has nothing to do with concerns for public safety - it is just easier to treat your population like crap if it is unarmed and can't fight back.
On the other hand, best way to prevent a tyranny is to have an armed population. So gun-control by definition is undermocratic, no matter how politically popular it gets due to deliberate misinformation from legacy media and demoagogues with political power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I'm not sure what you're getting at. My acknowledgement of the incrementalist strategy is an implicit acknowledgement that the libs. are limited in what they can do in one move. That's why their strategy is incremental. That doesn't mean that I can't discuss Sanders' plan at face value (you're the one who brought up weapon seizures, which I tried to downplay as unlikely).

---

Right, I am asking for your examples of incrementalism that is threatening the 2nd Amendment. What are these steps that have been taken?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Who said it did? Sleepy Joe's idea is to reintroduce the ban and force everyone with an AR to register it with the ATF.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I'm pointing out what the libs. want to do, not what it would be easy for them to achieve. No 2A advocate should be coaxed from the high ground by disingenuous reassurances about the alleged difficulty of getting AR restrictions on the books at a federal level. It has happened before you know.

---

What "has happened before" was the ban of sales of "assault weapons", not ownership, which you said yourself does not violate the 2A in the view of the SCOTUS. The ATF has no where near the means nor the will to force millions of gun owners to register their AR15s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

The relevant highlights:

- Stop the sale of assault rifles.
- Set up a buy-back scheme.

---

Which threatens the 2A not at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

- Regulate assault rifles in a way which makes them unlawful to own.

---

Terrifying. The vaguery is how you know Bernie is going to commit thousands of Ruby Ridges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I'm posting the stated policies of the Dem. candidates and you call it fear mongering. That's funny.

---

I agree, given the amount of Trump apologism you do and the :wub: he said in the GOP primaries, it's hilarious. "Dems gonna do every platform they list in their primary no matter how infeasible!"

Maybe it will make sense if I put it to you this way: you should take Bernie seriously, not literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

That the stated purpose for proposing an AR ban (safety) would be largely ineffective. But they're going to do it anyway because its a stepping stone to the next phase. And once they've banned the sale of ARs, forced every owner onto a register and instituted buy-backs, they aint gonna stop there.

---

The conspiracies are real, y'all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

Right, I am asking for your examples of incrementalism that is threatening the 2nd Amendment. What are these steps that have been taken?

---

See the changes implemented (and proposed) in VA. We were discussing them (as per the thread topic) until you tried to distract me with the "yeah but what about federally?" line.

Quote:

---

What "has happened before" was the ban of sales of "assault weapons", not ownership, which you said yourself does not violate the 2A in the view of the SCOTUS.

---

I'm not obliged to agree with the Court.

Quote:

---

The ATF has no where near the means nor the will to force millions of gun owners to register their AR15s.

---

So Biden is lying then?

Quote:

---

Which threatens the 2A not at all.

---

Yes it does. Even disregarding my opposition to a ban on "assault weapons", see my argument about incrementalism. You may think that the 2A should be limited to game rifles and pea-shooter revolvers, but I do not.

Quote:

---

Terrifying. The vaguery is how you know Bernie is going to commit thousands of Ruby Ridges.

---

So Sanders is lying too?

Quote:

---

I agree, given the amount of Trump apologism you do and the :wub: he said in the GOP primaries, it's hilarious.

---

1. Whataboutism.
2. Not being a shrill critic of Trump doesn't make me an apologist.

Quote:

---

"Dems gonna do every platform they list in their primary no matter how infeasible!"

---

Now all the Dems are lying?

Quote:

---

Maybe it will make sense if I put it to you this way: you should take Bernie seriously, not literally.

---

Not coming off my hill, friend. You're really going to have to try harder than this.

Quote:

---

The conspiracies are real, y'all.

---

> Specific Dem. manifesto pledges are "conspiracies".

Sure thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

See the changes implemented (and proposed) in VA. We were discussing them (as per the thread topic) until you tried to distract me with the "yeah but what about federally?" line.

---

This is the important part of your point: Virginia is passing a State law on this which your claiming is a thread to the 2A, by which I can only take to mean that a court case from this law would rise up to the SCOTUS which leads to an interpretation that threatens the 2A. That sounds pretty far fetched, no? I want to know by what scenario the 2A itself is under threat. This VA law effects VA only. If they think it is unconstitutional, they can challenge it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I'm not obliged to agree with the Court.

---

Sure, but I am not exactly a Constitutional scholar and I am probably going to have more confidence in the opinions of Judges that do this stuff over what a partisan hack says on the internet. Especially over the 2A as precisely squaring it with modern weapons is difficult, i.e. Americans generally agree individual citizens should have to have proper permits and registries to own a minigun (not protected by 2A) but are much more divided on owning an AR15 (protected by 2A).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

So Biden is lying then?

So Sanders is lying too?

Now all the Dems are lying?

---

Is this your first time paying attention to a US presidential primary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Yes it does. Even disregarding my opposition to a ban on "assault weapons", see my argument about incrementalism. You may think that the 2A should be limited to game rifles and pea-shooter revolvers, but I do not.

---

I don't think Assault Rifles should be banned, even with full auto capability. It's too much political effort for too little effect. As I said before, the cat is out of the bag when it comes to banning assault-style rifles. There are millions of those type of weapons already out in the population, getting them all back is infeasible without resorting to extreme violence (but maybe Bernie is just that cold of a bastard) and their contribution to violent gun use is minimal. Dems would be wise to abandon major efforts to go after guns themselves and instead focus on cleaning up ATF guidelines and closing gun distribution loopholes; hell Republicans may even work with them on that.

But that's not what we were talking about here; you were saying they were already attacking the 2A through incrementalism. I want to know more precisely how the scenario you are thinking of plays out; not just "this will obviously lead to that which will obviously lead to this". Who would be doing the damage: congress, SCOTUS, the president? How would they do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

1. Whataboutism.

---

I already addressed your point: the idea that a vaguely worded platform on a primary candidate's website is proof the 2A is in danger seems silly. Primary candidates pander to the more extreme elements in their party because that is who is most likely to show up and vote in them. Then, the candidate mellows out in the general so they don't spook the "moderates". This has been the norm for decades. If it gets to the general and the Dem's candidate is standing behind the platform "ARs should be made illegal to own" and are explaining what that platform means in practice, then yeah, I could see that being much more concerning. This: "Regulate assault rifles in a way which makes them unlawful to own." tells me very little and sounds like primary pandering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

This is the important part of your point: Virginia is passing a State law on this which your claiming is a thread to the 2A, by which I can only take to mean that a court case from this law would rise up to the SCOTUS which leads to an interpretation that threatens the 2A. That sounds pretty far fetched, no? I want to know by what scenario the 2A itself is under threat. This VA law effects VA only. If they think it is unconstitutional, they can challenge it.

---

My interpretation of the 2A's meaning is not limited by what the SCOTUS deems constitutional. I see creeping state bans (or attempted bans) on "assault weapons" (which are unlikely to be struck down) as being a threat to citizens' rights. Whether the Court deems them legal isn't particularly relevant to my opinion of them.

Quote:

---

Sure, but I am not exactly a Constitutional scholar and I am probably going to have more confidence in the opinions of Judges that do this stuff over what a partisan hack says on the internet.

---

So rude. :laughter:

Quote:

---

Especially over the 2A as precisely squaring it with modern weapons is difficult, i.e. Americans generally agree individual citizens should have to have proper permits and registries to own a minigun (not protected by 2A) but are much more divided on owning an AR15 (protected by 2A).

---

What evidence do you have that "owning an AR15 is protected by the 2A"? Seems to me that states like California have already banned them without any successful legal challenge. Manufacturers/owners have to update their models to conform to the law.

Quote:

---

Is this your first time paying attention to a US presidential primary?

---

Just say "Yes. Yes they are lying".

Quote:

---

I don't think Assault Rifles should be banned, even with full auto capability. It's too much political effort for too little effect.

---

The boy's a conservative! Even I (Señor "Partisan Hack") can see the reason in limiting full autos.

Quote:

---

As I said before, the cat is out of the bag when it comes to banning assault-style rifles. There are millions of those type of weapons already out in the population, getting them all back is infeasible without resorting to extreme violence (but maybe Bernie is just that cold of a bastard) and their contribution to violent gun use is minimal. Dems would be wise to abandon major efforts to go after guns themselves and instead focus on cleaning up ATF guidelines and closing gun distribution loopholes; hell Republicans may even work with them on that.

---

Well I'm glad we can agree that many of the proposals made by leading Democrats are "unfeasible". That doesn't mean they're not going to try and limit gun freedoms if they get elected.

Quote:

---

But that's not what we were talking about here; you were saying they were already attacking the 2A through incrementalism. I want to know more precisely how the scenario you are thinking of plays out; not just "this will obviously lead to that which will obviously lead to this". Who would be doing the damage: congress, SCOTUS, the president? How would they do it?

---

1. The key is in the "weapons of war" rationale. The whole point of the 2A is to give citizens access to arms with which they can depose a hypothetically tyrannical government. When the libs. start whining about how regulated assault rifles/semi-automatic hand guns are "weapons of war", that means that they've disregarded the 2A's primary function. That's the central reason why I don't think the progs. have any limiting principles on this.

2. I'm confident that you're familiar with the basics of how legislation is passed and/or challenged in the courts.

Quote:

---

I already addressed your point: the idea that a vaguely worded platform on a primary candidate's website is proof the 2A is in danger seems silly. Primary candidates pander to the more extreme elements in their party because that is who is most likely to show up and vote in them. Then, the candidate mellows out in the general so they don't spook the "moderates". This has been the norm for decades. If it gets to the general and the Dem's candidate is standing behind the platform "ARs should be made illegal to own" and are explaining what that platform means in practice, then yeah, I could see that being much more concerning. This: "Regulate assault rifles in a way which makes them unlawful to own." tells me very little and sounds like primary pandering.

---

Bernie Panders? :laughter:

Quote:

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgflip.com/1lxiox.jpg

---

When the Trump hysteria is over and we've moved onto the next Republican demon that needs slaying, you'll understand.

Quote:

---

"Grandpa, tell me the story of your stand on Partisan-Hack Hill during the war"

---

"When you're older, kiddo. Here, let me show you my 2016 meme war medal instead..."

Quote:

---

Nah, you see, you are taking him literally when you ought to be taking him seriously.

---

I never knew you'd become such a convert to the rationale of the Trump train.

So, should children be able to buy guns?

Children used to own guns for decades. It only became a "scary thing" due to legacy media fearmongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gromovnik

So, should children be able to buy guns?

---

Reduction to absurdity.

Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Children used to own guns for decades. It only became a "scary thing" due to legacy media fearmongering.

---

..and let's include the words "fun", family", and"sharing the experience", "My first rifle", "First Love. First Car. First Rimfire"

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/96fd3...ormat&fit=max&

Keep america safe. Guns are a bulwark against tyranny,and foreign invasions.How to Survive a Russian Invasion of the United States

Quote:

---

America is so comprised at this point in time that our national security is pretty much non-existent. Why? Our so called leaders belief and participation in a global economy!

---

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/96fd3...ormat&fit=max&
Oh dear.

delete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Reduction to absurdity.

Try again.

---

What's absurd about it? #toddlersagainsttyranny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

- Should over-populated urban centers really have power to legislate over less densely-populated areas? There is an obvious disparity in political beliefs and values, and mob rule by urbanite population is a very destabilizing factor.

---

I think this is the key point of this issue. The whole gun laws nonsense is merely obfuscation.
There should be measures put in place to ensure the rights of minorities, this includes the rights of rural citizens whose will and needs are overshadowed by the louder and more numerous voices of the urban population whose needs/wills differ strongly and are often at odds with one another.

Quote:

---

- The reason why Democrats were elected in Virginia was because of influx of population from other blue states. Essentially what is happening is Democrat voters escape results of Democrat policies in blue states - only to vote for these policies in red states they just moved to. What changes need to be implemented to prevent that? If someone from a blue state moves to a red state, should his vote count for the previous state at least for the next one or two election cycles (and visa versa)?

---

No changes. America is a Federal Republic, this is how a federal republic is meant to work.

Quote:

---

- Should media be held at least morally responsible for openly defaming gun-rights activists?

---

It's a delicate line that needs to be walked. "Defamation" of this kind is achieved through popular opinion. Popular opinion is already against gun-rights activists. The nature of mass media is to reinforce previously established opinion. I don't see what can be done, except draconian censorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Himster

I think this is the key point of this issue. The whole gun laws nonsense is merely obfuscation.
There should be measures put in place to ensure the rights of minorities, this includes the rights of rural citizens whose will and needs are overshadowed by the louder and more numerous voices of the urban population whose needs/wills differ strongly and are often at odds with one another.

---

Gun rights are not the only issue, but they are very far from nonsense. It is easier to treat unarmed population worse then the armed one.

Quote:

---

No changes. America is a Federal Republic, this is how a federal republic is meant to work.

---

The problem is people who run away from results of Democrat policies only to vote for those policies in the new state.

Quote:

---

It's a delicate line that needs to be walked. "Defamation" of this kind is achieved through popular opinion. Popular opinion is already against gun-rights activists. The nature of mass media is to reinforce previously established opinion. I don't see what can be done, except draconian censorship.

---

Negative opinion of gun activists is result of smear campaign by mainstream media and anti-gun politicians, both stem from elites that would rather see population disarmed (as elites themselves enjoy guarded gated neighborhoods and armed bodyguards).
So elites are clearly a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

My interpretation of the 2A's meaning is not limited by what the SCOTUS deems constitutional. I see creeping state bans (or attempted bans) on "assault weapons" (which are unlikely to be struck down) as being a threat to citizens' rights. Whether the Court deems them legal isn't particularly relevant to my opinion of them.

---

What does that have to do with the 2A?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

So rude. :laughter:

---

Well, you know, when you see a spade...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

What evidence do you have that "owning an AR15 is protected by the 2A"? Seems to me that states like California have already banned them without any successful legal challenge. Manufacturers/owners have to update their models to conform to the law.

---

I never said it was, I was speaking to the limits to what Americans believe regarding ARs and the 2A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Just say "Yes. Yes they are lying".

---

:laughter:
Sure, if you want to have a grade-level take on party primaries, they are lying. Would you consider that noteworthy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

The boy's a conservative!

---

No, just a Liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Even I (Señor "Partisan Hack") can see the reason in limiting full autos.

---

Why? So the tyrants can have an edge when the revolution begins? :laughter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Well I'm glad we can agree that many of the proposals made by leading Democrats are "unfeasible". That doesn't mean they're not going to try and limit gun freedoms if they get elected.

---

How?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

1. The key is in the "weapons of war" rationale. The whole point of the 2A is to give citizens access to arms with which they can depose a hypothetically tyrannical government. When the libs. start whining about how regulated assault rifles/semi-automatic hand guns are "weapons of war", that means that they've disregarded the 2A's primary function. That's the central reason why I don't think the progs. have any limiting principles on this.

---

I never quite followed this line of reasoning: if the point of the 2A is, in fact, to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government, why are proponents of this interpretation comfortable with restrictions on many types of weapons that would be incredibly useful in that instance? I mean, you are for restricting citizen access to mortars and grenade launchers, right? Why? Those would be incredibly useful in resisting a tyrannical takeover. If this is your view, where are you drawing your line on weapon access?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

2. I'm confident that you're familiar with the basics of how legislation is passed and/or challenged in the courts.

---

Good, then you would know how the 2A isn't really close to being threatened right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Bernie Panders? :laughter:

---

Classic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

When the Trump hysteria is over and we've moved onto the next Republican demon that needs slaying, you'll understand.

---

You mean like harping that the Libs are coming for law abiding citizen's guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

"When you're older, kiddo. Here, let me show you my 2016 meme war medal instead..."

---

It only cost functional governance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I never knew you'd become such a convert to the rationale of the Trump train.

---

Hey, if it works, it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

What does that have to do with the 2A?

---

VA limiting 2A rights concerns the 2A.

Quote:

---

Well, you know, when you see a spade...

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

I never said it was, I was speaking to the limits to what Americans believe regarding ARs and the 2A.

---

According to Pew, most Americans do not believe that AR's are covered by the 2A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pew Research

The groups [gun owners vs. non gun owners] are more divided when it comes to three other policy proposals: creating a federal database to track gun sales; banning assault-style weapons; and banning high-capacity magazines. Even so, significant shares of gun owners are open to these proposals. Roughly half of gun owners (54%) say they would favor creating a federal database, and 48% favor a ban on assault weapons. Some 44% of gun owners favor banning high-capacity magazines. Support for these proposals is much higher among non-gun owners, with about three-quarters or more saying they would support each of these proposals.

---

Quote:

---

Sure, if you want to have a grade-level take on party primaries, they are lying. Would you consider that noteworthy?

---

I just wanted to hear you say it.

Quote:

---

No, just a Liberal.

---

Nobody's perfect. :laughter:

Quote:

---

Why? So the tyrants can have an edge when the revolution begins? :laughter:

---

The further the tyrants' advantage, the greater the people's glory!

Quote:

---

How?

---

See:

-> Post 49 and;
-> Post 51

Quote:

---

I never quite followed this line of reasoning: if the point of the 2A is, in fact, to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government, why are proponents of this interpretation comfortable with restrictions on many types of weapons that would be incredibly useful in that instance? I mean, you are for restricting citizen access to mortars and grenade launchers, right? Why? Those would be incredibly useful in resisting a tyrannical takeover. If this is your view, where are you drawing your line on weapon access?

---

The wording of the amendment is as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "security of a free State" would be jeopardized if radicals, gangsters, terrorists and psychopaths were able to hold the country to ransom with howitzers, missile systems, tactical nukes etc. For my part, I wouldn't mind if fully automatic weapons were largely unrestricted (though I'm happy to compromise on that point), but once semi-automatic rifles or "assault weapons" are removed then the people would no longer possess the capacity to resist the state. A militia equipped with six-shooters and blunderbusses is as good as disarmed.

Quote:

---

Good, then you would know how the 2A isn't really close to being threatened right now.

---

Yes, because the federal government isn't controlled by Democrats.

Quote:

---

Classic.

---

I thought it was pretty original personally.

Quote:

---

You mean like harping that the Libs are coming for law abiding citizen's guns?

---

A few thousand 2A absolutists marching in VA isn't the same as the entire liberal establishment (D.C, the press, academia etc.) throwing an unrelenting temper tantrum for four years (and not just in the US). Once they've moved on and the frothing has receded, you'll realize that I wasn't such a Trump loyalist after all.

Quote:

---

It only cost functional governance.

---

As per my arguments in the the impeachment thread Trump is a consequence of institutional damage, not the cause of it. In any case, if this is what dysfunction looks like (improved living standards, the continuation of peace and increasing life expectancy) then we don't much need "functional governance" after all. Roll back the state I say.

Quote:

---

Hey, if it works, it works.

---

It only works if you don't concede that the Democratic candidates were lying! :doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

VA limiting 2A rights concerns the 2A.

---

Apparently not, unless the law has caused a change in interpretation of the 2A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

---

What a drama queen. I didn't refer to you as a bad guy, just a partisan hack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

According to Pew, most Americans do not believe that AR's are covered by the 2A.

---

Ok? Am I missing a point here? Maybe you want to give that part of the post you are responding to another read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I just wanted to hear you say it.

---

Grade school logic is so cute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Nobody's perfect. :laughter:

---

We can't all be partisan hacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

The further the tyrants' advantage, the greater the people's glory!

---

Then take away the guns, duh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

See:
-> Post 49 and;
-> Post 51

---

You never said how, you just said:
Step 1: Ban certain gun sales
Step 2:????
Step 3: Tyranny

To use a trending argument template: Slippery slope argument, try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

The wording of the amendment is as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "security of a free State" would be jeopardized if radicals, gangsters, terrorists and psychopaths were able to hold the country to ransom with howitzers, missile systems, tactical nukes etc. For my part, I wouldn't mind if fully automatic weapons were largely unrestricted (though I'm happy to compromise on that point), but once semi-automatic rifles or "assault weapons" are removed then the people would no longer possess the capacity to resist the state. A militia equipped with six-shooters and blunderbusses is as good as disarmed.

---

Wait, why are you placing the capacity to resist the state at ARs? What is magical about the AR that makes it necessary in resisting the state that doesn't apply to other weaponry I have mentioned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Yes, because the federal government isn't controlled by Democrats.

---

Ya need two thirds in both houses to change an amendment. I don't see Dems getting that anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I thought it was pretty original personally.

---

I am so sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

A few thousand 2A absolutists marching in VA isn't the same as the entire liberal establishment (D.C, the press, academia etc.) throwing an unrelenting temper tantrum for four years (and not just in the US).

---

Yeah, 2A alarmists are limited to a few thousand people marching in VA. Right. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Once they've moved on and the frothing has receded, you'll realize that I wasn't such a Trump loyalist after all.

---

You will kick him to the curb eventually, like the Right did with Bush, but not before you swing him like a bat as hard as you can. Until then, well, I don't think I have ever seen someone so radically change their foreign policy views in real time before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

As per my arguments in the the impeachment thread Trump is a consequence of institutional damage, not the cause of it.

---

Never said Trump was the cause of it. No where on these forums have I ever said that. I appreciate the hack characterization, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

In any case, if this is what dysfunction looks like (improved living standards, the continuation of peace and increasing life expectancy) then we don't much need "functional governance" after all. Roll back the state I say.

---

Didn't say it was currently dysfunctional either. I was saying the cost of partisan hackery is, ultimately, functional governance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

It only works if you don't concede that the Democratic candidates were lying! :doh:

---

What? Of course it still works. I don't remember seeing a change in the rules.

Quote:

---

You never said how, you just said:
Step 1: Ban certain gun sales
Step 2:????
Step 3: Tyranny

To use a trending argument template: Slippery slope argument, try again.

---

Slippery slope is kind of real when it comes to government infringements on individual freedoms, so he is correct.

The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.

It is a RIGHT, not a privilege.


There are no exceptions.

Any law preventing someone from owning a firearm, of any kind, is unconstitutional, and illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarchOfThePigs

The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.

It is a RIGHT, not a privilege.


There are no exceptions.

Any law preventing someone from owning a firearm, of any kind, is unconstitutional, and illegal.

---

Uuuhhhmmm….. no exceptions?
People in prisons?
The mentally ill?
Suspected terrorists?
Known criminals?
Children?
Those under the influence of controlled substances?
Illegal immigrants?
Aeroplane passengers?
Visitors to the White House?
Tourists? (I have to admit that when I was a tourist in Atlanta, I wielded a .50 desert eagle and it was epic)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Gun rights are not the only issue, but they are very far from nonsense. It is easier to treat unarmed population worse then the armed one.

---

As a European... yeah, it carries all of the hallmarks of being the definition of American nonsense. Also, it seems by statistics, that an armed population treats itself worse than an unarmed population, such that mistreatment from the government becomes superfluous.

Quote:

---

Negative opinion of gun activists is result of smear campaign by mainstream media and anti-gun politicians, both stem from elites that would rather see population disarmed (as elites themselves enjoy guarded gated neighborhoods and armed bodyguards).
So elites are clearly a problem

---

Negative opinion on guns is the default the world over with practically zero media influence on the topic, only America is aberrant in this regard.
About half of Americans support stricter gun control regulations. Are you saying that half of Americans live in gated communities?

Quote:

---

Slippery slope is kind of real when it comes to government infringements on individual freedoms.

---

By the same token, would you say that the requirement to have a driving licence (based on suitability) to use a car indicated a long term plan, by the government, to infringe upon individual freedoms or to even deprive the population of their use?
Cars and guns are dangerous, it only makes good sense that there should be reasonable limitations on those who can be permitted their use.

An opinion of a former mafia hit man, and under boss...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Himster

As a European... yeah, it carries all of the hallmarks of being the definition of American nonsense. Also, it seems by statistics, that an armed population treats itself worse than an unarmed population, such that mistreatment from the government becomes superfluous.

---

Citizens of certain European countries have significantly less individual freedoms then Americans do, which is the point.

Quote:

---

Negative opinion on guns is the default the world over with practically zero media influence on the topic, only America is aberrant in this regard.
About half of Americans support stricter gun control regulations. Are you saying that half of Americans live in gated communities?

---

it is only negative as "default" in authoritarian regimes or authoritarian-leaning regimes.
As for public opinion, it was already pointed out to be mainly result of smear campaign and misniformation from corporate media and politicians, both institutions being coincidentally owned by elite. Hence why we never see any real grassroots anti-gun movements, but plenty for the opposite.

Quote:

---

By the same token, would you say that the requirement to have a driving licence (based on suitability) to use a car indicated a long term plan, by the government, to infringe upon individual freedoms or to even deprive the population of their use?
Cars and guns are dangerous, it only makes good sense that there should be reasonable limitations on those who can be permitted their use.

---

Quote:

---

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

---

You can't defend yourself from criminals or tyrants with cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Himster

Uuuhhhmmm….. no exceptions?
People in prisons?
The mentally ill?
Suspected terrorists?
Known criminals?
Children?
Those under the influence of controlled substances?
Illegal immigrants?
Aeroplane passengers?
Visitors to the White House?
Tourists? (I have to admit that when I was a tourist in Atlanta, I wielded a .50 desert eagle and it was epic)

As a European... yeah, it carries all of the hallmarks of being the definition of American nonsense. Also, it seems by statistics, that an armed population treats itself worse than an unarmed population, such that mistreatment from the government becomes superfluous.


Negative opinion on guns is the default the world over with practically zero media influence on the topic, only America is aberrant in this regard.
About half of Americans support stricter gun control regulations. Are you saying that half of Americans live in gated communities?



By the same token, would you say that the requirement to have a driving licence (based on suitability) to use a car indicated a long term plan, by the government, to infringe upon individual freedoms or to even deprive the population of their use?
Cars and guns are dangerous, it only makes good sense that there should be reasonable limitations on those who can be permitted their use.

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

---

Show me where at, in the Constitution, that it says your Rights may be revoked, arbitrarily, especially with respect to the 2A.

Having a constitutional right doesn't mean it can't be regulated. It's not a blank check either. There is a reason why people often try to deflect simple questions such as what Himster directed. They have no answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun

Having a constitutional right doesn't mean it can't be regulated. It's not a blank check either. There is a reason why people often try to deflect simple questions such as what Himster directed. They have no answer.

---

Himster's questions were answered and not deflected, explaining why regulation by state is more dangerous then civilian gun ownership. Literally the first two posts above yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Himster's questions were answered and not deflected, explaining why regulation by state is more dangerous then civilian gun ownership. Literally the first two posts above yours.

---

Can you spot the exact place where someone addressed people in prison, mentally ill, or known criminals buying a gun? I could not see it.

Quote:

---

Citizens of certain European countries have significantly less individual freedoms then Americans do, which is the point.

---

Ahh yes like the right to NOT have their kids to do lock down in place drills

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Ahh yes like the right to NOT have their kids to do lock down in place drills

---

To be fair, most schools in our state don't experience gun violence. Which, considering the liberal gun laws in Washington State, is quite surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love Mountain

To be fair, most schools in our state don't experience gun violence. Which, considering the liberal gun laws in Washington State, is quite surprising.

---

True perhaps, but US gun still makes itself a staggering outlier vs every OECD developed nation in your chance of being killed by a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

True perhaps, but US gun still makes itself a staggering outlier vs every OECD developed nation in your chance of being killed by a gun.

---

In any case, I don't think focusing on the gun debate moves the country forward in any real way. It's an unfortunate distraction, but lobbying and legislative resources are better employed towards other activities. Every time there is a massive school shooting or something, politicians are obligated to drop everything and the debate is re-ignited again... Which could devolve into being a black hole for all debate. To draw a parallel, the scumbag Tim Eyeman somehow managed to dupe enough people into voting for i-976, which has set been a thorn in tax reform and lobbying for months. It's a huge issue obviously, but by the time it's solved, there will be another election cycle, new issues, and... it's just hard enough to mobilize resources. Retarded :wub: like i-976 or some school shooting takes away resources from the big underlying problems.

"Tim Eyeman"

Ahh yes I want to complain about the quality of all my government services but somehow I think pink pony unicorns provide them for free as soon as government does not due to lowered tax income. But than again maybe I assume I will always be wealthy and elite.

The charlatan should be banned from politics. It's bad enough that he's been annoying people for a decade, he wasted a good portion of November and December that I could've spent on other :wub:. I've also had zero progress with trying to push zoning as an agenda. Affordable housing is a buzzword that people love to bring up but nobody actually wants to tackle or really talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Slippery slope is kind of real when it comes to government infringements on individual freedoms, so he is correct.

---

Slippery slope for me but not for thee, eh?

It's not a slippery slope when the intentions and arguments of leading liberals are there for us to see. Their supposed inability to do what they claim to want is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

It's not a slippery slope when the intentions and arguments of leading liberals are there for us to see. Their supposed inability to do what they claim to want is irrelevant.

---

Not sure what you mean. I am perfectly fine with gun ownership as soon as it is well regulated in a system. Hmm that sounds familiar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

It's not a slippery slope when the intentions and arguments of leading liberals are there for us to see.

---

What an inane statement. You still never gave what any of this would look like and are still going down the "step 2: ??? / step 3: Tyranny" route. You obviously don't put stock in primary posturing, you are just pretending to now for convenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

Their supposed inability to do what they claim to want is irrelevant.

---

Not really; going "down a slippery slope" implies something is actually happening. If dark, shadowy agents want to do something but can't do anything, then you aren't really going down in any meaningful way.

And I am just trying to imagine you using this exact line when discussing something about Trump. "It's not a slippery slope when the intentions and arguments of Trump are there for us to see. His supposed inability to do what he claims to want is irrelevant" :laughter: It's like staring at an eclipse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

What an inane statement. You still never gave what any of this would look like and are still going down the "step 2: ??? / step 3: Tyranny" route. You obviously don't put stock in primary posturing, you are just pretending to now for convenience.

---

We could go in circles discussing the hypothetical scenarios in which the government could successfully ban "assault weapons". As I've stated, that's irrelevant to whether certain liberals actually want to ban "assault weapons."

Quote:

---

Not really; going "down a slippery slope" implies something is actually happening. If dark, shadowy agents want to do something but can't do anything, then you aren't really going down in any meaningful way.

---

A slippery slope implies that the implementation of position A will facilitate, encourage or act as a Trojan horse for the implementation of position B. Position B is therefore a future projection/expectation not a description of the present. A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone infers or deduces position B from position A without evidence: e.g. "legislating for same-sex marriage facilitates, encourages or acts as a Trojan horse for the legalization of pedophilia". In this case (gun control), candidates like Sanders are already openly supporting position B (banning "assault weapons"), so no fallacious inference of intent has occurred.

Quote:

---

And I am just trying to imagine you using this exact line when discussing something about Trump. "It's not a slippery slope when the intentions and arguments of Trump are there for us to see. His supposed inability to do what he claims to want is irrelevant" :laughter: It's like staring at an eclipse.

---

If Trump wanted something impractical, I wouldn't argue that you were engaging in a slippery slope fallacy for pointing out that he wants it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The spartan

I never quite followed this line of reasoning: if the point of the 2A is, in fact, to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government, why are proponents of this interpretation comfortable with restrictions on many types of weapons that would be incredibly useful in that instance? I mean, you are for restricting citizen access to mortars and grenade launchers, right? Why? Those would be incredibly useful in resisting a tyrannical takeover. If this is your view, where are you drawing your line on weapon access?

---

You better keep your hands off my Sherman tank.

I thought I already answered that point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

"The wording of the amendment is as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "security of a free State" would be jeopardized if radicals, gangsters, terrorists and psychopaths were able to hold the country to ransom with howitzers, missile systems, tactical nukes etc. For my part, I wouldn't mind if fully automatic weapons were largely unrestricted (though I'm happy to compromise on that point), but once semi-automatic rifles or "assault weapons" are removed then the people would no longer possess the capacity to resist the state. A militia equipped with six-shooters and blunderbusses is as good as disarmed."

---

As cool as Sherman tanks are, you can lump 75mm cannons in with howitzers, missile systems and tactical nukes as weapons for the purposes of my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Not sure what you mean. I am perfectly fine with gun ownership as soon as it is well regulated in a system. Hmm that sounds familiar.

---

But the 2A states that it is a Right, not a privilege, nor does it mention any exceptions to the entitlement of this Right.

Regulation = privilege.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun

Having a constitutional right doesn't mean it can't be regulated. It's not a blank check either. There is a reason why people often try to deflect simple questions such as what Himster directed. They have no answer.

---

"The Right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Shall

Not

Be

Infringed


Definition of infringe

transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Ahh yes like the right to NOT have their kids to do lock down in place drills

---

Sure.

You guys just have truck attacks every other week, and have to defend yourselves with swordfish because your government has allowed butter knives!! :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I thought I already answered that point:
[...]
As cool as Sherman tanks are, you can lump 75mm cannons in with howitzers, missile systems and tactical nukes as weapons for the purposes of my point.

---

Blame my inability to make my sarcasm (directed at quoted post of The spartan) obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gigantus

Blame my inability to make my sarcasm (directed at quoted post of The spartan) obvious.

---

My bad. When we've had variations of the same comment made about 30 times it can be difficult to spot which ones are sarcastic and which are genuine.

Understandable, no issue.

Always interesting to see a 200 year old phrasing aimed at circumstances 200 years ago getting perverted** for today's situation. Getting reminded of bible interpretation.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Was the District of Columbia v. Heller case mentioned already?

"One of the points at issue in the Heller case is whether the right to bear arms is related directly to service in a militia, or whether it’s an individual right conferred on every American. Opponents of gun control favor an individual rights reading, ignoring or minimizing the militia’s presence in the Second Amendment."

The 5\4 ruling: Writing for the majority, Antonin Scalia argued that the operative clause of the amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” codifies an individual right derived from English common law and codified in the English Bill of Rights (1689).
Dissent: Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the court’s decision “fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

A PDF with the complete opinion of the judges can be found here.

** Having an intended meaning altered or misrepresented

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarchOfThePigs

"The Right to bear arms shall not be infringed."


Definition of infringe



transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

---

Quoting the dictionary = instant win. WITH FACTS & LOGIC!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarchOfThePigs

"The Right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Shall
Not
Be
Infringed
Definition of infringe
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

---

So, you're OK with arming convicts or the mentally ill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarchOfThePigs

But the 2A states that it is a Right, not a privilege, nor does it mention any exceptions to the entitlement of this Right.
Regulation = privilege.

---

Pretty much every clause in the constitution is regulated one way or an other. You have free speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater as the cliche example goes. Supreme Court is OK with that.

Here is a section of the court's opinion I linked to earlier that seems to get totally ignored:

Quote:

---

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

---

Somehow I doubt that automatic weapons and the like are "in common use".