Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 248

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

  1. #41

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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?
    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.
    Last edited by Cope; January 24, 2020 at 06:37 PM.



  2. #42

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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 View Post
    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!
    Last edited by The spartan; January 24, 2020 at 07:24 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  3. #43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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.

    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

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by Cope; January 24, 2020 at 07:52 PM.



  4. #44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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 View Post
    The thousand year Trumpreich could have been yours
    It would have at least limited the amount of moral degeneracy we are facing as a nation.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  5. #45

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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.
    It would have at least limited the amount of moral degeneracy we are facing as a nation.
    The real counter reformation will be lead by his Holiness, Rick Perry.



  6. #46

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  7. #47

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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.



  8. #48

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  9. #49

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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.



  10. #50

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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 View Post
    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-ing-Sanders is going to initiate a violent gun seizure or "mandatory buy-back", all without a congressional bill.
    Last edited by The spartan; January 24, 2020 at 10:10 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  11. #51

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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.

    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.

    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-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.
    Last edited by Cope; January 24, 2020 at 10:43 PM.



  12. #52

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  13. #53

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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.

    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.

    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".

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


    Are you even an American citizen?
    Questioning my citizenship status is a microaggression.

    "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.

    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.



  14. #54

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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 View Post
    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?
    And then something something about how progressives want to seize guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  15. #55

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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).

    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.

    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.

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


    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.

    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.



  16. #56

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

    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.

  17. #57

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    - 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 View Post
    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 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 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by The spartan; January 26, 2020 at 07:03 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  18. #58

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    Terrifying. The vaguery is how you know Bernie is going to commit thousands of Ruby Ridges.
    So Sanders is lying too?
    I agree, given the amount of Trump apologism you do and the 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.

    "Dems gonna do every platform they list in their primary no matter how infeasible!"
    Now all the Dems are lying?

    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.

    The conspiracies are real, y'all.
    > Specific Dem. manifesto pledges are "conspiracies".

    Sure thing.



  19. #59

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by alhoon; January 27, 2020 at 04:09 AM. Reason: off topic (Cannot be discussed) parts removed
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #60

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Is this your first time paying attention to a US presidential primary?
    Just say "Yes. Yes they are lying".

    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 (Seņor "Partisan Hack") can see the reason in limiting full autos.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    When the Trump hysteria is over and we've moved onto the next Republican demon that needs slaying, you'll understand.

    "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..."

    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.
    Last edited by Cope; January 27, 2020 at 07:56 AM.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •