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

[Vanoi]

You can object but its perfectly legal and gun laws don't really corelate with gun crime.

[The spartan]

It's the only way he could hold a consistent position!

Well yeah, his position is that there literally can't be a gun restriction law that facilitates anything other than abusing power. If there are some gun restrictions that we can agree are there not to abuse power, his position is a loser. I mean, I thought we already established that you don't agree with that position?

PS: Don't worry I'll get round to responding to your essay soon enough.

It's fine, I have to respond to monster posts as well.

Chicago statistics prove that its draconian gun control is useless in maintaining public safety or preventing criminals from acquiring firearms. Why else would one want to implement gun control? My position is that state should not have agency over what objects an adult individual can own, including weapons. I strongly oppose anti-drug laws for the same reason.

Gun control stats exist outside of Chicago as well, I assure you. And bear in mind: "gun control" isn't necessarily blanket bans, but any law that has some effect of restriction on gun ownership. Obvious reasons to have some effects would be to keep guns out of the hands of disabled persons (whose disability would effect safe use of the firearm), emotionally compromised individuals (threatening to harm themselves or others) and violent felons; those are forms of gun control.

But I find this very interesting, you are giving me rather Liberal minded reasons (classic use of Liberal, not 'American Liberal') saying that government shouldn't have a say over what citizens should and should not own. Admirable starting point, but Liberals usually find some form of 'bounds' as to what a proper balance between individual/societal freedoms. Is your position here that the government should not be able to control any objects a citizen may possess? I am trying to get an idea of what your actual paradigm is, here.

[The spartan]

EDIT: double-post.

[Cope]

Well yeah, his position is that there literally can't be a gun restriction law that facilitates anything other than abusing power. If there are some gun restrictions that we can agree are there not to abuse power, his position is a loser. I mean, I thought we already established that you don't agree with that position?

If we're talking strictly about guns (ie. small arms) rather than all weapons, then I understand that point of view to some extent. There is the potential for any gun control to "facilitate" abuses of state power, but that isn't the only outcome they serve.

[The spartan]

If we're talking strictly about guns (ie. small arms) rather than all weapons, then I understand that point of view to some extent.

Weren't you ok with restricting fully automatic weapons and machine guns? Individually operated machine guns are very much small arms.

There is the potential for any gun control to "facilitate" abuses of state power, but that isn't the only outcome they serve.

Ok, well his position is that gun control can only be used for the sake of abusing power. You either agree with that or you don't.

[Cope]

Weren't you ok with restricting fully automatic weapons and machine guns?

I reluctantly accept restrictions on full-autos.

Individually operated machine guns are very much small arms.

I know.

Ok, well his position is that gun control can only be used for the sake of abusing power. You either agree with that or you don't.

As I said, I agree with the part that it can facilitate abuse, not that it only does so.

[Cope]

you are very special.

Well I'm glad we finally agree on my super specialness.

I don't think you are going to find the section on ARs being necessary to form a militia, that was your addition.

No one said that ARs are explicitly mentioned; that doesn't mean that my standard isn't derived from the purpose of the amendment.

Well no, I am not trying to pose an absurd scenario but am trying to point out how weird your priorities around firearms are.

Your questioning was predicated on a creep toward absurdity. It was designed as follows:

(1) To decry any line I drew as "arbitrary".

(2) To falsely insist that the only way I could maintain logical consistency was to accept the open availability of absurdly powerful weapons.

Of course, we're going to see you reframe and restate this silly position later when you argue that the populous must be fully militarized to resist state tyranny.

On one hand you are arguing that if citizens don't have unrestricted access to ARs, they are dangerously at risk of government tyranny; on the other hand you are also arguing that even slightly heavier weaponry (such as non-absurd machine guns) are unnecessary and fairly easy to compromise on. The difference in ARs and machine guns are a whole lot less than "unrestricted access completely necessary" and "no big deal to ban".

As I've explained, I'm willing to compromise on machine guns for the following reasons:

(1) The argument was settled years ago. It now has little support among conservatives, let alone the general population.

(2) Even though automatic weapons would be beneficial to resisting state tyranny, the view that unrestricted access to automatic weapons would pose a threat to the free state (on account of criminality) has some merit.

However:

(1) If I had the authority I would deregulate some automatic weaponry.

(2) If I had been alive at the time, I would have opposed the ban.

I am sure you would say so, yes.

Well I have just said so, so there.

Wait, was W. Bush a true conservative or an establishment RINO? I can never remember...

It was a mixed bag - not that it's particularly relevant to this conversation.

Also, it is important to note that that the real reason it expired was because the 10 year expiration was literally part of FAWB legislation. The tyranny!

> The reason the bill expired was because it had an expiration date.

You don't say?

Ok, and the R's are persistently vocalizing their desire to do all kinds of restrictive/rights violating things. I guess you just think citizens shouldn't be as vigilant against those threats, huh? Or maybe, just maybe, trying to snipe quotes from opposition candidates and saying "Look! They say they want 'X' so it means they are willing to do 'Y' to achieve 'X' is a partisan hack thing to do. Remember all the times I referenced Trumps multiple quotes about wanting to casually commit war crimes as evidence of his goal of becoming a tyrant and his willingness to do it? No? Probably because I don't do that.

> What about orange man bad?

Discarded.

Maybe because you are missing the point? I didn't introduce the trade-off (balancing weapons that are bare minimum necessary vs. what weapons criminals could have access to), you did, you just didn't notice that this paradigm is practically identical to what gun control advocates claim, you just think ARs fall under the "necessary" category and they don't.

I've already acknowledged that both sides are, for the most part, arguing over the same trade-off. I don't see that as a relevant observation.

My views on gun control are more focused on trying to pragmatically handle the relationship of individuals, society, and weapons in today's day and age

Nice attempt to hide behind a lack of specificity. Don't worry though: I'm used to being the one under scrutiny in our little debates (we must have exchanged over 15000 words, and I still don't know what your position is).

not trying to predict what types of weapons would need to be unrestricted to keep a tyrannical government at bay.

Presumably because you don't view the provision as existing to resist threats to the free state.

First off, there is no such thing as a "military tier" of rifles as you are using it here.

Military tier assault and battle rifles are weapons which would meet military standards. In most cases that would mean they have the capacity to fire fully automatically. Such weapons are not typically available to the public.

Every single mechanism I can think of that is the staple of modern firearms had it's start with military application. The "essential", by which I can only take to mean "modern standard", feature of firearms would be if it were self-loading or not. While ARs are a type of self-loading rifle, the group is much broader than just ARs and would include my grandpa's M1 Garand.

Access to self-loading rifles is indeed essential, but not exclusively so. The key differences between modern ARs and Gramps' M1 are the weight, recoil, round size, magazine capacity, available attachments etc. For these reasons - and despite the M1 being deadly in its own right - it is an inferior weapon by comparison contemporary assault or battle rifles.

That Dems would try to push a bill banning all self-loading rifles is especially crazy.

It doesn't seem implausible that they'd move to ban the sale of M14s or FALs (which aren't altogether much different from an M1).

Secondly, I don't know where you are going with rifles/explosives. Again, it doesn't seem as if explosives are used in many violent crimes nor do you have a particularly compelling reason to suggest they would add a significant amount to the homicide count. You may see them used more in flashy terrorist attacks, but those are anomalies, no?

You were the one who drew a comparison between the idea of military grade explosives and military grade rifles. This was your tangent, not mine. I'll get to the point about explosives and criminality later.

I am sure that is what you would, minimally, assume; it's part of that partisan paradigm to be as uncharitable as possible to the "opposition" with your assumptions while remaining charitable to "allies".

I don't have to be uncharitable when leading Ds like Biden, Sanders and O'Rourke openly lament the availability of "assault-weapons" in the civilian market. The idea that they might consider battle rifles (M14s, FALs or even M1s) alongside ARs doesn't, as I've mentioned, seem implausible.

Meanwhile in reality, we have an example of a bill that already existed (that you still seem to view as unacceptable anyways) to compare to what a future bill might look like should it even be proposed.

I can't tell you what the specifics of any Biden bill would be, beyond what his policy team has already published. We can only go off his previous rhetoric (which is extremely negative about so-called "assault-weapons").

Tell me: how did that bill handle classification? Was it by broadly targeting self-loading rifles?

The FAWB targeted self-loading rifles with detachable magazines (which I believe would have included rifles like the M14).

Yup.

Glad we agree on that.

Nope. There is no "bare minimum" to be competitive, it entirely depends on what weapons the competition is using and how "competitive" you intend on being (you don't need an AR to have "any combat effectiveness"). This isn't some theoretical thing, there are militias that operate right now who claim to be fighting tyrannical powers, some including against the US military. Do you think that the Taliban, YPG, or FARC believes that ARs are sufficient weapons to be "competitive" in their resistance? They continuously express a need for heavier weaponry in their resistance against who they see as tyrannical oppressors. I don't know exactly how potent of weapons you would need to violently resist tyranny from the US government, but ARs seem woefully inadequate given what I have seen from active militia groups across the world.

The purpose of my standard is to deter state overreach and to enable some capacity for immediate militarization/resistance in the event of an emergency. It is not about optimizing the capacity of a popular front to resist an unrestricted military assault by the US govt.

Well, that would depend on if you mean "form a militia" or "violently and effectively resist the US government"; those are two different standards.

The purpose of forming a militia is to resist state tyranny (though not necessarily from the USG).

Or, you can disregard the trade-off given that guns seem to have little to do with self-defense or crime rates in our 21st century society and use other criteria for determining gun laws, you know, like the rest of the world.

Most other democratic nations have banned or severely restricted firearms as an antidote (or so they claim) to serious criminality and high rates of suicide. That doesn't mean that they "disregarded" the trade-off: it just means that they took an extreme position on it.

I am pretty sure I declared the "get rid of guns" position as garbage pages ago; and I didn't say your standards were the same as gun control advocates, I said your arguments for limiting access to potentially necessary weapons was the same. Your standards are different.

Again, I'm not sure the meaning of this observation. I don't don't have to be arguing across a different "paradigm" to the libs in order to hold a consistent and reasonable position. The fact that we're arguing along the same axis doesn't somehow make me a hypocrite.

No you don't, you are fine with militia being too under equipped to facilitate effective armed resistance against a tyrannical government; as evident by current militias claiming to fight tyrannical powers.

This is an attempt to reframe your previous appeal to absurdity. According to this standard, any restriction on arms would impede a militia's ability to optimally resist a tyrannical govt. By extension, any restriction could be considered a violation of the 2A.

My response to this is the same as it was before: the degree to which militarization should be possible has to be considered in the context of the self-defence vs. criminality trade-off.

You have also created an odd implication by implying that: unrestricted access to ARs is necessary for militia, militia is necessary to prevent tyranny, so I guess practically every other nation besides like, the US and Switzerland are doomed to tyranny as they don't have unrestricted access to ARs?

It's about probabilities rather than inevitabilities. Do I think that disarmed populations are more open to state abuses than armed populations? Yes. And clearly the architects of the Bill of Rights thought so too.

a) there is no such thing as military grade explosives, explosives are fairly easy to obtain in the US

This is a rather tedious attempt to give me the run around. If there is no difference between different types of explosive, explain why firecrackers are widely available, but grenades, C4 and 120mm mortar shells are not.

and b) then what is the problem of making them legal if they could be necessary in resisting tyranny and aren't used in many criminal homicides?

For self-evident reasons, the US becoming the #1 source for explosives smuggling does not serve the interests of a free state. Nor would a inevitable uptick in grenade attacks, terrorist plots or the stockpiling of explosive materials. The risk posed by criminality outweighs the argument for immediate self-defence needs.

If your goal is to be equipped with competitive material to a tyrannical government (you are saying that is necessary, right?), then that heavily informs the "trade-off", yes. "Objective" would be to look at the weapons used by militia forces today to see how the combat is being carried out; not armchair general your way into guess what weapons combatants find necessary. This isn't like an all encompassing spectrum of anti-tyranny to criminal banditry, you are trying to accomplish a specific goal: have a militia equipped heavily enough to effectively and violently resist a tyrannical US government. If you are accepting a limitation on weapons necessary to accomplish that goal, you have sorta compromised the goal and admitted that being able to effectively conduct violent resistance against a tyrannical government is a position that can be compromised on (read: not that necessary, we can trade it off without risking tyranny).You need to let go of this notion that mortars or grenade launchers (or grenades, even) are absurd things for a militia to have. You just have to look around at modern conflicts to see how inadequate just ARs are for militia involved in conflicts (Donbass, Syria, Sudan, Yemen)

Sounds like you are trying to pass off two different standards as one: you have a) bare minimum weapons necessary to form a militia "for militarization" (which doesn't require ARs), and b) weapons necessary to provide a certain level of combat efficacy (which would include ARs depending on how effective you intend on being). You aren't arguing on whether militias should be able to form or operate, you are advocating for a very specific level of combat efficacy militias should have access to (ARs, no explosives or machine guns). That is an arbitrary level of combat effectiveness that has no relation as to what militia's actually do when fighting in real conflicts. I mean, denying them grenades ffs. Now, if you intend for militia to only be capable of a rear echelon role, ARs would be sufficient for a militia operating just in support of more proper military forces, but then again, you wouldn't really need ARs for that either.

You're ignoring the second part of the equation (ie. the criminality question), dismissing the point I've made about immediate necessity and framing a prospective state tyranny in a particular way (ie. as an open civil war). So let's go through these points again:

(1) Militias in active conflict zones like the Donbass, Syria and Yemen do not have to take the self-defence vs. criminality trade-off into consideration. Their conflicts have escalated beyond such considerations. By contrast, the 2A has to be viewed in the context of a peaceful and free society laying provisions for a prospective, yet unwanted conflict.

(2) As above, my position (open access to military-style semi-automatic firearms) is designed both to deter state overreach and to enable some capacity for immediate militarization in the event of an emergency. It is not about optimizing the capacity of a popular front to resist a full state assault minus any other considerations. If that were my concern, I would simply argue that the civilian market should be opened to all available weaponry.

You got me on edge by trying to evoke the Founding Fathers at me.

This is a discussion about the Constitution isn't it?

Also see above: the "trade-off" isn't a necessary or useful paradigm in forming gun laws and you should probably use something else.

The only real arguments that exist against the free availability of all weaponry is the threat of criminality and suicides. And since suicide can be performed as effectively with a basic revolver as with a rifle, that part of the discussion is unrelated (unless you want to make the case for banning handguns).

Though, I wasn't citing the trade-off as making "virtually the same" as gun control advocates; it was you using their exact same argument. Every argument you provided for limiting machine guns or grenades is copy-pastable to an argument for limiting ARs: "criminals can use them to hurt people", "the weapons aren't necessary for protection", "there would be significantly more homicides committed (with no evidence to suggest such)"

To reiterate, the fact that the cons and the libs are arguing on the same axis is irrelevant. I've repeatedly explained, in detail, why I oppose the banning of AR sales.

Totally not a slippery slope argument, no sir. What were the criteria for a slippery slope argument again?

I was making a general observation about the hypocrisy of your claim that it was me - and not the incrementalist libs - who was fighting "where the battle is at". As you'll note I haven't actually sought to address arguments about banning handguns (although they very much do exist).

In any case, we can see exactly what happens in most countries where the libs get their way. All guns get banned.

All hail, king of the partisan hacks. Don't worry, it's not a title I am coveting.

Your irrepressible sarcasm is still not a substitute for an argument, my dear fellow.

However you are being when you say "orange man bad"; it's that whatever that level of non-literal is.

"Orange man bad" is a phrase used to mock liberals who become irrationally tearful about everything the president does. I thought that was obvious.

Wow, you sure are right, that bare bones article (made up of 7 sentences) about a case that has minimal context sure proves that Europe is falling to authoritarianism; the defendant could have deserved jail time for all I know about that case.

Read more about it. In the US, a man would be treated as a hero for pumping a home invader full of buckshot. In the UK, you become a convicted felon.

Fortunately authoritarian regimes do not exist by just having court cases sometimes resolved in a way you don't like, they exist by doing things like Orban in Hungary or Putin in Russia: consolidating unilateral power. Like I said, it's off-topic, but for those who care about geo-politics you will note that whether or not a state is authoritarian is much more related to how political power is transferred in that state (hence the inclination by authoritarians to remove term-limits or disregard elections) rather than what weapons civilians have widely accessible to them.

You've already conceded that this is a red herring, so there's no need to discuss it further.

That's a super loaded (partisan) way of saying "believe civilians shouldn't have unrestricted access to ARs", but ok. Though to be fair to them, that seems to be the position of the vast majority of policy makers around the globe; unrestricted access to ARs ain't exactly a global standard. I mean, you are familiar with Brit policy, no? Would a policy of unrestricted access to ARs be considered mainstream or fringe?

I find it amusing that you're tacitly willing to defer to the rest of the world on firearm norms while at the same time crying "slippery slope" when handgun restrictions are mentioned. If your position is based on following the crowd, you might as well just forget the whole Constitution thing.

More of partisan, but very, given that you would never accept this type of reasoning were the barrel facing the other way. Were you so inclined to be reasonable I am sure you would agree that Trump would prefer if he did not have checks on his powers as president from congress or the courts. Though, if I came into a thread and said "hey, voting or supporting Trump puts the US on the path towards the tyranny of a president who has no checks on his power", you would undoubtedly show up to say Trump isn't posing an actual threat of tyranny by simply preferring things were different. You may even say that Trump hasn't made any real moves to tyrannical control. But, by using your simple reasoning here, Trump wouldn't even need to do or propose any particular policy or even have a plausible scenario of takeover, just the fact he wants there to be no checks on his power is proof enough that he and his supporters are/will put us on a incrementalist path to tyranny. You would not accept that as a valid claim against Republicans, only Dems.

The difference is that Trump hasn't openly stated that he wishes he could rule as an absolute monarch. Senior Ds openly and consistently claim that "assault-weapons" do not belong in a civilian market/society.

I mean, we do have a president who openly laments checks on his power and that he can't sue people for free speech, but I guess that just isn't a threat you are concerned with.

>What about orange man bad?

Discarded.

I have no idea what this means. Again, there is no arbitrary "bare minimum", there is only a subjective judgement on how much firepower you want. Maybe by "immediately necessary" you are trying to say that militia can just mobilize into machine guns and grenade launchers (as they are necessary)? If that's the case, why wouldn't militia just have access to like, handguns, and then just mobilize into ARs (as they are necessary) in the same way? Not that I would know how a militia reacting to growing tyranny would be able to get the heavier equipment they need if it wasn't even accessible to them pre-tyranny. It seems like if your main goal here is to have militias equipped well enough to violently resist a tyrannical US government, they would need access to that equipment when they believe it is necessary to have not when the government tells them it is. The US public would just need to take violently criminal acts to the teeth as we already do with currently legal firearms (which the US public seems to find acceptable, mind you). If it makes you feel any better, by any indication; machine guns, mortars, and grenade launchers would likely be limited to criminal use in certain terrorist acts as they just aren't that practical for day-to-day criminal activity. And as you indicated earlier, data shows ARs, while used in such high-profile terrorist acts, ultimately contribute only a small amount to the yearly homicide rate; that would likely be the case with the machine guns, mortars, and grenade launchers as well.

This has been answered repeatedly above (and in subsequent posts). I see no reason to continue going round in circles.

Imagine referencing the Founders on what type of modern weapons militia's find necessary. Cringe.

The SC considers the original intentions of the amendment. That necessarily includes a consideration of the type of "arms" that the Constitution is referring to. If you think that 2A's authors and contemporary supporters didn't have some forethought for advances in weaponry, I assume you also believe that the 1A's reference to the freedom of the "press" refers exclusively to material produced using 18th century printing presses.

That's not what you wanted, the revolutionaries had access to quite comparable equipment to what the British were fielding at the time. You don't want modern militia to have access to such comparable equipment as their potential tyrants.

The revolutionaries only had access to comparable weapons in terms of small arms (muskets, knives and swords) at the beginning of the rebellion (much of which was captured). In the early days, Washington only had access to artillery which had been procured from the British (I believe that his first cannons were taken from a British fort in NY).

Sure. Sure.

Sure indeed.

"Blunt the liberal offensive", see you always thought of this as a war. And, as we all know, all's fair in love and war, right?

I think the Geneva convention put flight to that idea.

You would probably use the term "alarmist" when defending against claims that the GOP is moving us towards autocracy (no "don't be hawkish about civil liberties" here!); but isn't the real difference between "hawkish on civil liberties" and "alarmist just a matter of what politics you prefer?

I see your supposition is not supported by an example. One would think that my carping about Gitmo, NSA spying and the lies told about Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as my general hostility toward the GOP) would've had some effect on you. I guess the "partisan hack" accusation really is just too appealing to be sidelined.

Maybe you missed or are just ignoring my position here, but I would very much not be ok with the government violently seizing guns back from people; much as I am against detention without trial, torture, or illegal surveillance. I just reject your premise that Dems wanting some form gun control legislation (and your, suddenly, absent minded logic that Dems could just pass super-intense gun restrictions in congress no problem) of proof of their intention to violently seize guns later on (you know, the slipper slope); much in the same way you reject the premise that Trump's comments on torture and war crimes are proof of his intent to force draconian policies on the US. Seems like you are only concerned about "tyranny" when it comes from a specific source. Again, it's like when you say "you mean Libs were lying?" about primary promises; the focus of your contempt is not on the word "lying" (remember, Trump is acceptable in your opinion), it's "Libs".

We've discussed this repeatedly. No one has claimed that a violent weapon seizure is likely. You're framing it that way to damage the credibility of the claim that senior Ds have an interest in significantly rolling back the scope of 2A.

That's what a slippery slope is, yes. You are claiming that literally any gun control legislation is unacceptable because Dems will just use it to push on to their ultimate goals of violently seizing guns from citizens and achieving tyranny "if they're given an inch". This is like, textbook.

1. The Ds ultimate goal is not to "violently seize guns from citizens". It is to remove so-called "assault-weapons" from civilian society. Senior Ds have been fairly explicit about this.

2. I haven't accused the Ds of being involved in a conspiracy to "achieve tyranny". Their perennial worship of big govt tends to be a consequence of their incompetence, not their wickedness.

And I reject your claim that the "undeniable intention" of Dems is to violently seize guns from citizens.

Just as well that I never made such a claim then. We've spoken about the soft eradication of semi-automatic weapons earlier in the thread. Why you think ARs couldn't be regulated in the same way that automatic weapons were (ie. without "violent seizures") is anyone's guess.

You were literally trying to score points on the concept that Dems were "liars" for making promises in the primaries they knew they probably couldn't keep if elected. Unless you are suddenly pretending like you don't know how the GOP primary went down, it's pretty clear that such "lies" are not really that big of a concern for you (I guess when they come from one specific side).

I don't see why it would be impossible for the Ds to implement a federal ban on the sale or transfer of "assault-weapons" if they take control of the legislature and the executive. In fact, I don't see why it would be impossible for them to go further than that, given that it isn't particularly obvious where the SC would come down.

I mean, desperately wanting to repeal the 1954 Johnson Amendment, place the 10 Commandments in our judicial buildings (no religious preferences here!), and teach sectarian classes in public schools all seem like incrementalist steps towards a "Christian Nation". I understand why this would be less of a concern to you.

But what of the Founding Fathers? Surely the 'wall of separation' between church and state is taller than that. I doubt you support as near as much separation as Jefferson or Madison did; which is much more than just state-forced prayer or bans on secular teachings.

You seem to think progressives spend a lot more time thinking about Christianity than they actually do. Though, I don't know what progressives complaining about Christians has to do with my or your reasoning. Also, the Religious Right in the US are some of the biggest snowflakes in politics; some still have PTSD over barely surviving the Atheist Horde's War on Christmas.

>What about the religious right?

Discarded.

I don't think I get what you mean by this. Are you calling me a theocrat?

No. I'm saying that you care about opposing Christian reasoning within govt.

Again a super loaded (partisan) way of saying that many Dems think that civilians shouldn't have unrestricted access to ARs (the evil Dems are going to kick in your door and smash your beloved weapons in front of your eyes!). And you make such position seems extreme or niche, that civilians should not have broad access to ARs is literally the position of most democratic policy makers (and their constituents) in the world.

Many Ds think that civilians shouldn't have access to ARs at all, let alone unrestricted access. Your denials of this reality insult my intelligence. As do your attempts to present my argument as some sort of pantomime ("the evil Ds are going to kick in your door").

What? You think I secretly believe that any gun control legislation poses a threat to the 2A and I am just being bad faith pretending otherwise? Sorry to say, my man, but plenty of gun control legislation already exists and you seem to accept that as not being a 2A threat. So I am sorry to say that I am being genuine when I claim I don't think Dems contemplating gun control legislation (that is yet to be proposed) poses a genuine threat to the 2A. If the Dems start proposing real legislation of "mandatory buy-backs" or other legislation that broadly seizes property from citizens, you can come back and find me much more sympathetic. Such policy would be a disaster.

No. I'm saying that the attitude of many senior Ds regarding "assault-weapons" (that they have no place in a civilian society) is a threat to the 2A, even if the path toward eradicating said weapons isn't immediately obvious. It would be as if senior Rs still went around lamenting the Civil Rights Act and scheming to stymie it wherever they could. One would forgive people for finding that disquieting to say the least.

Right, because you aren't actually an idiot who doesn't know how primary pandering and posturing works, you just play one on TV. You sure seem to understand this when the GOP candidates make insane statements/policy positions.

I'm not sure what's "insane" about promising to go after terrorist co-conspirators.

Why? Your arguments are the same type of delusional.

Yet you've failed to land a single punch on me.

Hey, if "Liars" are a true category of people, you have well categorized yourself, haven't you?

I had the courtesy to acknowledge that I'd made a mistake. A mistake which stands as your greatest triumph!

To be clear, you aren't fear mongering over an attack Dems have done against a civil liberty, you are raising the alarm over the perception that they want to.

This actually started as a debate about VA, which has enacted firearm restrictions.

That's not the standard you are holding to the Republicans; their civil liberty-threatening wants seem acceptable to your position.

>What about the Republicans?

Discarded.

Presumably, the platform was listed on his website some time before you wrote your last message and was, you know, leading.

Exactly. Sanders was leading. So what reason would he have to adopt a desperate, disingenuous position of firearms? Non, so far as I can see.

And Sanders was certainly desperate, as most primary candidates are, to seem strong on party favorite topics (because that's who votes in primaries)

Sanders' comments were more extreme than anyone's (with the exception of O'Rourke). He had no particular reason to stand behind such a statement unless he actually believed it.

again, just as the GOP does in their primaries. If you go to 38 minute marker, you can see Trump do it in real time; or did you really think he was going to "save" social security?

> What about orange man bad?

Discarded.

I am sure you are "pretty sure" about Biden doing lots of things; that's what you do. Though, I have no idea what "force a ban through Congress if he has the numbers to do it" means; do you mean passing legislation?

> Does the legislature legislate?

Lmao.

Sure? But you are delusional if you think American voters particularly care about unkept primary promises (as evident by support for our current politicians) and a liar if you are pretending you care about primary candidates making untenable campaign promises (as evident by the unconcern about politicians of a certain ideology who do this).

>Claims no one cares about lying.
>Accuses me of being a liar.

Lmao.

You are also the one implying "pursuing at all costs", not me, by saying Dems would "eradicate" ARs through unpopular and draconian means; that's "pursuing at all costs", no?

As I've already outlined, I do not think that the Ds would pursue a "violent" seizure of weapons. This is a false spectre which you've summoned in an attempt to ridicule legitimate concerns.

People could argue that, but you personally wont because then you are in a bind with Trump being the most foot-in-mouth politician who you will claim is not representing his ambitions or things he would try to get done when he makes insane policy statements. If that were the case, he would be a much more immediate threat to the Constitution in general than any Dem primary candidate is.

> What about orange man bad?

Discarded.

Wait, the Dem candidate may very well try to pass further firearm legislation if elected, of course. I never denied that. I denied that that was going to be an extreme and disastrous legislation that seizes property from law abiding citizens. If you are saying that proposing any legislation regarding gun control is too dangerous to allow, than you are truly too deep down the partisan hole and I can't help you.

My position is that the legislation being proposed by senior Ds (including Biden) will restrict citizens rights. There is also a significant possibility it will be used as a platform for further restrictions in the future.

>inb4 "muhhh slipperrry"

Oh, good, so you feel settled now that you know the 2A is safe in the hands of a Conservative SCOTUS. Thank goodness you didn't overreact!

More safe than it otherwise would have been, but not safe enough.

Also, I don't believe I have made any such statements about the current SCOTUS; I think it is unlikely of them to simply overturn RvW because that is real tacky for a court to do.

Courts don't really make determinations on the basis of "tacky". It's not a fashion show.

Interestingly enough, I hold that "eradicating" abortion is the Right wing equivalent position to the foolish notions of gun control those on the Left have. It's something they seem to care so very much about but would be a disastrous and impractical policy if they ever got their way.

Imagine not liquidating millions of lives. That would truly be a disaster. Especially in a country with below replacement fertility rates.

Either way, I can only but imagine the liberal cope if abortion laws were tightened even marginally. We all remember the rivers of tears that flowed when Alabama dared to suggest that a pregnant mother acting in criminally negligent fashion could be held responsible for the death of her own daughter.

This doesn't actually address what you are quoting at all.

It does.

Cool, so you are also saying the GOP represents a credible threat to the constitution and pushing an incrementalist agenda toward tyranny? Or do you have specific, totally non-partisan, reasons on why things the current Republican president says don't represent threats but things Democratic primary candidates do? Because if your overall stance is: "all these politicians are threats of tyranny," I would have much harder time addressing (or find interest in) your points. Maybe you really are just "hawkish about civil liberties" and forget to mention it when the Right is the threat.

That depends. There is a difference between campaign pledges/manifestos and offhanded remarks made in the troll war between CNN and the president.

My "excuse" is that you obviously don't care about politicians "lying" (in this case, making infeasible campaign promises) and are trying real hard to grasp at any emotional insult you can leverage against Dems. The hand-waving is intense even by Religious Right standards: "You mean he is LyInG?!?!" Why are you pretending like you think it's notable for politicians to make untenable campaign promises?

Allow me to refer you to my previous comment:

"You've already claimed that Sanders was lying about his proposal to regulate "assault-weapons" in a way which "essentially makes them unlawful to own". If your only excuse for this is to claim that "everyone does it [lies]", then there's nothing more to discuss."

Again, what are you talking about? I was bringing up the legal ambiguity of the term "banned" to show it doesn't represent any real policy until further defined. Whether a "ban" violates an amendment entirely depends on what the "ban" actually is in a policy sense. SCOTUS, for example, found that a ban on certain gun sales was not a violation; but their position (especially current SCOTUS) may be that a ban on ownership of already owned guns is a violation of the 2A.

You introduced the idea of "legal ambiguity" around "banned" weapons as if that was even particularly relevant to a discussion about which weapons should be freely available to the adult population.

Uhhh, no? I always viewed it as a judgement on how lethal of tools we want our fellow citizens to have private access to balanced with what is legally feasible policy; you can leave the self-defense/criminality trade-off out of it, guns have little to do with either (at least in today's society).

The "lethality" of weapons is only politically relevant when they're used criminally. We aren't arguing about ARs for any other reason. If there was no criminal activity involving firearms, this would be a non issue.

Never knew that the steps of a fallacy could, itself, be a fallacy.

Your fallacious use of the fallacy does indeed rely on fallacious thinking.

That's weird. Anyways, just because something can be a step toward an undesirable outcome, it doesn't mean there is a natural or expected progression to that outcome.

Again, we know what the Ds want. They've stated it enough times.

You can't actually believe that kind of reasoning: that a politician's expressed policy preferences represent their "end goal or ambition" to do something horrific. That would be far too messy for you

I've already explained why the notion that the Ds supposedly want violent seizures is a straw man of my interpretation.

This is the fallacy bit; politicians don't try to force through every single policy preference they have while they hold the presidency, they pick and choose what they can accomplish. Imagine believing that "any changes they do make" are designed around a singular objective in mind. Hell, imagine accusing a politician of pushing an insidious agenda in every single action they take. Claim that enough and people may even meme it.

For the nth time, we know what senior Ds desire on gun control. Biden has even recruited Mr."hell yeah we're gonna take your ARs" to be his agent. It isn't a conspiracy to assume that people who openly state they wish "assault-weapons" could be removed from the civilian population would have that objective in mind when drawing up firearm regulation(s).

[Heathen Hammer]

Gun control stats exist outside of Chicago as well, I assure you. And bear in mind: "gun control" isn't necessarily blanket bans, but any law that has some effect of restriction on gun ownership. Obvious reasons to have some effects would be to keep guns out of the hands of disabled persons (whose disability would effect safe use of the firearm), emotionally compromised individuals (threatening to harm themselves or others) and violent felons; those are forms of gun control.

First two usually don't count as adult individuals in the first place. Violent felons is a tricky question. I like the idea of no early release for violent felons (or even not being allowed to re-enter society, depending on the nature of the crime), but just like anyone else, they shouldn't just automatically lose a right to defend themselves if they are let back into a society. A felon can just start his life all over, and if someone attacks him, should be able to defend himself.
Of course that doesn't apply to people that went to jail for smoking pot or other drugs, as they have no business being in jail in the first place.

But I find this very interesting, you are giving me rather Liberal minded reasons (classic use of Liberal, not 'American Liberal') saying that government shouldn't have a say over what citizens should and should not own. Admirable starting point, but Liberals usually find some form of 'bounds' as to what a proper balance between individual/societal freedoms. Is your position here that the government should not be able to control any objects a citizen may possess? I am trying to get an idea of what your actual paradigm is, here.

Again, what citizen buys with his money should only be a problem of citizen. I don't really see much issue with citizens owning machine guns or buying drugs for recreational use. Act of owning an object, any object, is a victim-less act. And victim-less acts shouldn't be criminalized to begin with.