Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 231

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

  1. #161
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,333

    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 Vanoi View Post
    Biden says but i don't see any assault weapons ban passing Congress with that provision nor do i think it would hold up in a court since his idea seems more like confiscation than a buyback program.
    Of course you never know what politicians will actually do until they're in power, and, as you say, most outcomes are contingent on support (or lack thereof) from Congress. Nevertheless, were there to be a Biden presidency and two Dem. controlled chambers, I think it likely that they'd at least try to attach an enforced registration scheme for assault weapons onto a resurrected form of the FAWB. Since the House will probably remain blue in 2020 and the presidency and Senate are up for grabs, it isn't implausible that this could come to pass.

  2. #162
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15,628

    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 you never know what politicians will actually do until they're in power, and as you say, most outcomes are contingent on support (or lack thereof) from Congress. Nevertheless, were there to be a Biden presidency and two Dem. controlled chambers, I think it likely that they'd at least try to attach an enforced registration scheme for assault weapons onto a resurrected form of the FAWB. Since the House will probably remain blue in 2020 and the presidency and Senate are up for grabs, it isn't implausible that this could come to pass.
    I understand things can be unpredictable. However in this case, its even more unlikely. Did some quick browsing and found out the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 makes it outright illegal for the federal government to keep a national registry of gun owners.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firear...Protection_Act

    Getting support for an assault weapons ban would be hard enough. Biden is kidding himself if he thinks he can get a registry too.

  3. #163
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,333

    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 Vanoi View Post
    I understand things can be unpredictable. However in this case, its even more unlikely. Did some quick browsing and found out the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 makes it outright illegal for the federal government to keep a national registry of gun owners.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firear...Protection_Act

    Getting support for an assault weapons ban would be hard enough. Biden is kidding himself if he thinks he can get a registry too.
    That's referring to non-National Firearm Act weapons. Presumably Biden wants to amend the legislation to classify all assault weapons as Title II firearms.

  4. #164
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,646

    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
    Now let's look at your deliberately cropped quote in full:



    This understanding of the 2A is absolutely correct. The point of the amendment is not about worshiping guns, its about ensuring that citizens have the tools to protect themselves from criminals or tyrants (aka "bad guys"). I too - along with all sane people - would rid the world of weapons were it possible, but so long as evil persists we have a duty to protect ourselves from it.

    Now I will concede that his fleeting comments about forgoing due process and promising to consider Feinstein's bill were ham-fisted, but we all understand the way that this is the way the political game is played. It is expected for a president to make bipartisan noises in the aftermath of a national tragedy like the Parkland or El Paso murders. What actually matters is the concrete proposals (as linked above) that the administration support. The reason that the NRA has stayed firmly onside with the pres. is precisely because said proposals bare no resemblance to your doom mongering.



    Very few congressional Republicans have "gone against Trump" because he's barely deviated from the neocon. agenda except to pursue national conservative policies (building the wall, negotiating the USMCA, cancelling TPP etc.) In fact I can't think of a single liberal bill or executive order which has come out of the federal gov't. since Trump has taken office. So once again, your criticisms strike me either as concern trolling, establishment pearl clutching or a combination thereof. Frankly, there is no other plausible explanation for why any conservative would support Biden (a liberal across the board, not just on firearms) over Trump.
    Lol. Trump could shoot a guy on Fifth Avenue and he wouldn't lose your support, would he? Yeah, this is exactly why getting rid of him is so important for the conservative movement. Well, agree to disagree time, I guess.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch

  5. #165
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,333

    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 Prodromos View Post
    Lol. Trump could shoot a guy on Fifth Avenue and he wouldn't lose your support, would he? Yeah, this is exactly why getting rid of him is so important for the conservative movement. Well, agree to disagree time, I guess.
    You were exposed for having posted misleading quotes and for falsely implying that the president was using Republican lackeys to usher liberal bills through Congress. And since you've run out of road, you resorted to the classic liberal "5th Avenue" talking point (a bizarre accusation to make after I'd openly conceded that Trump hasn't been perfect on the 2A).

    Now honestly, no one minds if you've converted to the progs. or some obscure puritanical cult (America is a free country), but I would rather you didn't insult my intelligence with your "controlled migration is bad!", "I can't wait for Texas to turn blue!", "Biden is our Savior!" "impeach Drumpf now!" concern trolling.
    Last edited by Cope; February 21, 2020 at 07:47 AM.

  6. #166
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,646

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

    Trump: "I hate the concept of guns, I'm not in favor of it. I've already banned bump stocks for 500,000 people (something that even Obama refused to do), and I'm gonna do a lot more than that. I want universal background checks, I want an assault weapons ban, I want to raise the age to buy a gun. Take the guns first, no due process. I like taking the guns away early. I want to pass the strongest legislation in years. We're gonna make some people in Congress do things they don't want to do."

    Normal conservative: "Hey this fella seems pretty anti-gun."

    5th-Avenue Trump-supporters: "Wooooow, such fear mongering. Has he banned guns yet? No? Then shut up. Trust the plan, man. Trump is our savior. We need him to defeat the anti-gun libs. You must be a Dem for not worshiping Trump."

    Last edited by Prodromos; February 21, 2020 at 06:24 AM.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch

  7. #167
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,333

    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 Prodromos View Post
    Trump: "I hate the concept of guns, i'm not in favor of it. I want universal background checks, I want an assault weapons ban, I want to raise the age to buy a gun. Take the guns first, no due process. I like taking the guns away early. I want to pass the strongest legislation in years. We're gonna make some people in Congress do things they don't want to do."
    These points (including the deliberately cropped and false quotes) have already been answered. Instead of doom mongering, I suggest that you read the actual proposals, consider the surrounding polling data and pay attention to political context of the president's remarks.

    Normal conservative: "Hey this fella seems pretty anti-gun."
    A 93% approval among Rep. voters and continued support from the NRA tells you what "normal conservatives" think of the president and his attitude toward firearms.

    5th-Avenue Trump-supporters: "Wooooow, such fear mongering. Has he banned guns yet? No? Then shut up. Trust the plan, man. Trump is our savior. We need him to defeat the anti-gun libs. You must be a RINO for not worshiping Trump."
    I actually just requested that you stopped concern trolling me with tired liberal talking points (which include falsely painting mainstream Republicans as Trump cultists). Though I maintain that if you are actually a Republican, you have no room to accuse of others of "leftism" if you're going to persist with your Biden advocacy. At this point you're starting to sound like a disgruntled con. who would've supported Mondale over Reagan on the basis that the latter wasn't pure enough on the 2A (not that Trump supports an AR ban anyway). I suggest that you don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

  8. #168
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,294

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

    At this point you're starting to sound like a disgruntled con. who would've supported Mondale over Reagan on the basis that the latter wasn't pure enough on the 2A (not that Trump supports an AR ban anyway). I suggest that you don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
    But does anyone really vote on one issue? Reagan could have been for an absolute gun ban and his other policies would still have seen me vote democrat.

    ---

    Going back a bit

    This understanding of the 2A is absolutely correct. The point of the amendment is not about worshiping guns, its about ensuring that citizens have the tools to protect themselves from criminals or tyrants (aka "bad guys"). I too - along with all sane people - would rid the world of weapons were it possible, but so long as evil persists we have a duty to protect ourselves from it.
    Err and the average joe has overturned tyrants when again? Protect yourself, from what and how?
    Last edited by conon394; February 21, 2020 at 07:02 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  9. #169
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,333

    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 conon394 View Post
    But does anyone really vote on one issue?
    I imagine many people are single issue voters (I bet there are plenty of Sanders' supporters who're only interested in Medicare for all), though that's besides the point. My interlocutor is complaining about Trump's alleged liberalism on gun control while openly supporting a candidate who freely insists on resurrecting the FAWB. Suffice to say, I don't like being concern trolled.

    Reagan could have been for an absolute gun ban and his other policies would still have seen me vote democrat.
    Reagan could have been for an absolute gun ban and his other policies would still have seen me vote Republican.

    Err and the average joe has overturned tyrants when again? Protect yourself, from what and how?
    These questions have already been answered repeatedly throughout the thread (and by 2A advocates for decades). Use 1776 as your starting point.

  10. #170
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,646

    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
    These points (including the deliberately cropped and false quotes) have already been answered. Instead of doom mongering, I suggest that you read the actual proposals, consider the surrounding polling data and pay attention to political context of the president's remarks.

    A 93% approval among Rep. voters and continued support from the NRA tells you what "normal conservatives" think of the president and his attitude toward firearms.

    I actually just requested that you stopped concern trolling me with tired liberal talking points (which include falsely painting mainstream Republicans as Trump cultists). Though I maintain that if you are actually a Republican, you have no room to accuse of others of "leftism" if you're going to persist with your Biden advocacy.
    You haven't answered anything. The quotes I posted are all sourced and anyone can see the context for themselves. Trump's promises to pass much of the Left's anti-gun agenda are not part of some 4D chess plan to protect gun rights.

    And as has been explained to you several times, the reason a Democrat presidency would be better for gun rights is not because Democrats are pro-gun, but because negative partisanship would guarantee near-unanimous Republican opposition to any gun control measure proposed by a Democrat. This is in contrast to the current situation, where a lot of Republicans are ready to pass gun control as soon as they get the go-ahead from Trump, who's made it pretty clear that he's a big fan of gun control.

    Once Trump officially comes out in support of gun control, the RINOs in Congress will have the political cover to pass it into law. Once that happens, there's no "Undo." In this polarized era, it's extremely unlikely that pro-gun Republicans will ever have the votes to repeal these laws in the future.

    Toomey said some Republican senators are “rethinking” their prior votes against his legislation. “Support from the president is going to be essential,” he said. “But with that support, I really think we could get to the 60 votes we need.”
    Now, if you have no principled commitment to gun rights, if you're willing to support Trump no matter what he does so long as he's at least slightly better than the Democrat alternative and as long as you get to own the libs or whatever, this may all be fine to you, but obviously I and others have different views and different priorities.

    Anyway I'm not wasting my time on this. You can have the last word, I don't really care.
    Last edited by Prodromos; February 21, 2020 at 08:00 AM.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch

  11. #171
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,333

    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 Prodromos View Post
    You haven't answered anything.
    I have, but you dismissed my post in favour of posting liberal talking points.

    The quotes I posted are all sourced and anyone can see the context for themselves.
    They can. And as per my retorts, they will see, first that you posted misleading clippings and second that (as explained) Trump's comments do not provide a rational basis for defecting to Biden.

    Trump's promises to pass much of the Left's anti-gun agenda are not part of some 4D chess plan to protect gun rights.
    I've cited the proposals which Trump brought forward. Not a single one of them (red flag laws/background checks) go anywhere near as far as the buy back schemes and federal registration plans supported by Biden, let alone the assault weapon ban imagined by Sanders. That doesn't mean that I'm pleased with what Trump has suggested, but I'm savvy enough to know that he's far more friendly on the 2A than virtually any Washington Democrat.

    And as has been explained to you several times, the reason a Democrat presidency would be better for gun rights is not because Democrats are pro-gun, but because negative partisanship would guarantee near-unanimous Republican opposition to any gun control measure proposed by a Democrat. This is in contrast to the current situation, where a lot of Republicans are ready to pass gun control as soon as they get the go-ahead from Trump, who's made it pretty clear that he's a big fan of gun control.
    I don't know how you can lack the self-awareness to make a comment like this after having accused others of falling for "4D chess" explanations. Remember, you're talking about a Senate which had enough defectors to prevent the repeal of the ACA; even if you assume that Republicans would hold the Senate (which is unlikely were Biden to win the presidency) believing that there won't be purple state Senators who won't back further firearm regulations (again look at the polling) is frankly delusional. And that's before we get into the rest of Biden's coastal lib. platform which will be foisted on the nation if he wins.

    Once Trump officially comes out in support of gun control, the RINOs in Congress will have the political cover to pass it into law. Once that happens, there's no "Undo." In this polarized era, it's extremely unlikely that pro-gun Republicans will ever have the votes to repeal these laws in the future.
    As above, the same argument is equally applicable to a Congress under a Biden presidency. The difference is we know that Biden will support far-reaching gun controls. So again, if your point was simply that you won't vote for Trump on the basis of his prospective support for limited gun regulations that at least would be understandable. Instead, and after accusing the president of being leftist, you openly advocate for a liberal king pin and argue that the same congressional Republicans you've accused of being Trump lackeys will keep him in check (even though, as noted above, Biden win would almost certainly coincide with a blue Senate flip anyway).

    Now, if you have no principled commitment to gun rights, if you're willing to support Trump no matter what he does so long as he's at least slightly better than the Democrat alternative and as long as you get to own the libs or whatever, this may all be fine to you, but obviously I and others have different views and different priorities.
    Now, if you have no commitment to limiting liberalism, if you're willing to oppose Trump no matter what the Democrats do so long as they're not "orange man bad" and as long as you get to play the constitutional conservative, concern troll or whatever, this may all be fine to you, but obviously the vast majority of Republicans and the NRA have a different view and different priorities.

    Anyway I'm not wasting my time on this. You can have the last word, I don't really care.
    That's a shame. I was really hoping for more liberal talking points (4D chess, orange man bad, 5th Avenue etc.)

  12. #172

    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 Prodromos View Post
    You haven't answered anything. The quotes I posted are all sourced and anyone can see the context for themselves. Trump's promises to pass much of the Left's anti-gun agenda are not part of some 4D chess plan to protect gun rights.

    And as has been explained to you several times, the reason a Democrat presidency would be better for gun rights is not because Democrats are pro-gun, but because negative partisanship would guarantee near-unanimous Republican opposition to any gun control measure proposed by a Democrat. This is in contrast to the current situation, where a lot of Republicans are ready to pass gun control as soon as they get the go-ahead from Trump, who's made it pretty clear that he's a big fan of gun control.
    It is likely that a successful Democrat run in 2020 will result in a similar trifecta victory that the Republicans enjoyed in 2016. Depending on how large the lead is, an assault ban could very well pass. You can point to conservative pro-gun Democrats, especially in the Senate, who are unlikely to risk their seats over such a hotly-debated issue, but I would also point to vulnerable Republican seats who will also have to weigh the same considerations when voting on a gun control bill. 2022 Senate map is no more kinder to Republicans than the 2020 one.

    That said, Trump is not really a friend of gun rights, nor is he an enemy. He simply doesn't care and as we saw with the bump stock ban, if it is politically convenient for him, he will do it.

  13. #173

    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
    "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."
    I don't know about nukes and missiles but I gave the example of mortars and grenade launchers which you seem to think should be banned from civilian ownership. The bold part means nothing. You have no evidence to suggest that legalizing the ownership of mortars and grenade launchers would lead to the country being held ransom. They would likely account for a minimal amount of criminal deaths if legalized, like ARs. And, like ARs, the off terrorist may use a mortar in an attack on citizens, but they would most likely be a small minority of violent deaths on a per capita basis so not that much of a concern. They could also be used in resisting of government tyranny, so really, by what reasoning do you have for limiting the 2A to law abiding American citizens who want a mortar or grenade launcher? "Bandits will use them to take over" sounds like a weak-ass reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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 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?
    If you can't even script a hypothetical by which such an attack on the 2A would occur then it sorta seems like it isn't an imminent threat. Almost like you want people to be more worried than they ought to be about the 2A.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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.
    But position B wasn't "banning assault weapons", it was "tyranny". Sanders hasn't already supported a position of violently seizing guns from law abiding citizens, that is the slippery slope being implied. Sanders has expressed support for a federal assault weapons ban, which is vague. I think that it pretty clearly points to his support of such a Legislative bill if it was brought forward, and that a "ban" refers to sales and not, you know, violent seizures (or other legal penalties) for those who currently own such guns. You know, like the last "assault weapons ban" the US had. Though I suppose you could be right and that Sanders actually plans to forcibly disarm the American public before subjugating us to tyranny. Just kinda have to weigh the odds on that one.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    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.
    Wait, so would you instead argue that he wouldn't be able to get the insane he wants or that it's ok if he does get it? Because he says a lot of things that sound threatening that I am pretty sure you downplay.
    Last edited by The spartan; February 22, 2020 at 06:23 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  14. #174
    swabian's Avatar Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,509

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

    The Spartans wouldn't have cared about anything. They would have just watched the Helots die and if the enemy has eaten too much through the Helot peasantry, they would have defended themselves like the utterly racist cowards they were.

  15. #175

    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
    These questions have already been answered repeatedly throughout the thread (and by 2A advocates for decades). Use 1776 as your starting point.
    I find 1776 ironic given how much the average joe had the reputation for running from the field and it took a fully trained military to beat the british off the continent.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  16. #176
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,333

    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
    I don't know about nukes and missiles but I gave the example of mortars and grenade launchers which you seem to think should be banned from civilian ownership. The bold part means nothing. You have no evidence to suggest that legalizing the ownership of mortars and grenade launchers would lead to the country being held ransom. They would likely account for a minimal amount of criminal deaths if legalized, like ARs. And, like ARs, the off terrorist may use a mortar in an attack on citizens, but they would most likely be a small minority of violent deaths on a per capita basis so not that much of a concern. They could also be used in resisting of government tyranny, so really, by what reasoning do you have for limiting the 2A to law abiding American citizens who want a mortar or grenade launcher? "Bandits will use them to take over" sounds like a weak-ass reason.
    It's not the discharge mechanism (mortar tube, grenade launcher) that's the threat. It's the ammunition. Providing potential terrorists, gangsters and/or psychopaths with unfettered access to mortar rounds and grenades with which they could make roadside IEDs, easily concealable bundle devices or car bombs would be irresponsible. We've seen the damage that the cartels and Islamists can do when they have access to such weapons.

    If you can't even script a hypothetical by which such an attack on the 2A would occur then it sorta seems like it isn't an imminent threat. Almost like you want people to be more worried than they ought to be about the 2A.
    We've already discussed this at length. An attempt to resurrect the FAWB (which would almost certainly happen in a Dem controlled Washington) would itself be a denigration of the 2A. Whether or not the court would agree that any such provision was constitutional is irrelevant to my personal position.

    But position B wasn't "banning assault weapons", it was "tyranny".
    No it wasn't (although you might make the point that banning assault weapons is necessarily tantamount to tyranny).

    Sanders hasn't already supported a position of violently seizing guns from law abiding citizens, that is the slippery slope being implied.
    Nowhere have I stated or implied that Sanders wants to "violently" seize weapons. I simply cited his own publicized view and used it as evidence that, contrary to Sukiyama's assertion, many libs. (including the VA Democrats) aren't just interested in "common sense" red-flag laws or registration requirements. I also claimed that the federal gov't. could use (and almost certainly would) use soft enforcement were it to actually support a national ban on all assault weapons.

    Sanders has expressed support for a federal assault weapons ban, which is vague. I think that it pretty clearly points to his support of such a Legislative bill if it was brought forward, and that a "ban" refers to sales and not, you know, violent seizures (or other legal penalties) for those who currently own such guns. You know, like the last "assault weapons ban" the US had. Though I suppose you could be right and that Sanders actually plans to forcibly disarm the American public before subjugating us to tyranny. Just kinda have to weigh the odds on that one.
    This tangent about "bans" started because I oppose liberal incrementalism toward, not just outright bans, but sale bans too. You then accused me of using the slippery slope fallacy even though most senior Democrats openly state that they want to ban the sale of assault weapons and others (Beto, Sanders etc.) say they want to eradicate ARs altogether.

    Wait, so would you instead argue that he wouldn't be able to get the insane he wants or that it's ok if he does get it? Because he says a lot of things that sound threatening that I am pretty sure you downplay.
    I like how you're using a sarcastic tone with me when the basis of your own argument is that Sanders "won't be able to get the insane thing he wants".

  17. #177

    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
    It's not the discharge mechanism (mortar tube, grenade launcher) that's the threat. It's the ammunition. Providing potential terrorists, gangsters and/or psychopaths with unfettered access to mortar rounds and grenades with which they could make roadside IEDs, easily concealable bundle devices or car bombs would be irresponsible. We've seen the damage that the cartels and Islamists can do when they have access to such weapons.
    What are you on about? You can make an IED without mortar rounds or grenades nor do we have direct reason to believe it would become a major problem in the US. The amount of violent crime committed every year with explosive material is fairly low. Again, you may have your isolated terrorist incidents involving grenade launchers, but those already happen with a variety of other weapons that we consider justly protected. I don't know why fear of terrorist/criminal activity is justification to flat out ban one weapon system but not the other. You said the main reason for the 2A was to resist a tyrannical government. For some reason you seem to believe that ARs are the rational limit to what the 2A protects for the sake of staving off a tyrannical government. What is that reason? You seem to heavily imply that banning even the sales of ARs would ultimately end in tyranny but we can forgo access to slightly heavier weaponry and not have to worry about tyranny? Why is the limit on ARs?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    We've already discussed this at length. An attempt to resurrect the FAWB (which would almost certainly happen in a Dem controlled Washington) would itself be a denigration of the 2A. Whether or not the court would agree that any such provision was constitutional is irrelevant to my personal position.
    Sure, but we both know what your "personal position" is, so I am not particularly interested in that. If you can't lay out any series of events that would conceivably lead to significant damage to the 2A, I would tend to think it isn't under imminent threat. You crowing on about how the Libs are coming for the guns (...eventually) isn't noteworthy.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    No it wasn't (although you might make the point that banning assault weapons is necessarily tantamount to tyranny).
    RIP nations that restrict AR access, I guess, lost to tyranny.

    Whatever final letter you want to use to mark your positions; it ends in tyranny, right? You are saying if Libs restrict access (say, sales) of ARs, you are saying that tyranny is inevitable?
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Nowhere have I stated or implied that Sanders wants to "violently" seize weapons. I simply cited his own publicized view and used it as evidence that, contrary to Sukiyama's assertion, many libs. (including the VA Democrats) aren't just interested in "common sense" red-flag laws or registration requirements. I also claimed that the federal gov't. could use (and almost certainly would) use soft enforcement were it to actually support a national ban on all assault weapons.
    You mean like with the FAWB? That had no such "soft enforcement" ban on ownership of guns purchased prior to the ban. And the FAWB itself was an affront to the 2A, remember? So you don't even need to have enforcement to promote a national ban on ownership; just banning the sales and leaving already owned guns in circulation means tyranny!

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This tangent about "bans" started because I oppose liberal incrementalism toward, not just outright bans, but sale bans too. You then accused me of using the slippery slope fallacy even though most senior Democrats openly state that they want to ban the sale of assault weapons and others (Beto, Sanders etc.) say they want to eradicate ARs altogether.
    See, when you say "incrementalism" you are implying that the ban of sales of assault weapons is not where Libs or Dems would stop. You are saying they are going to go further (if elected), right? That is why I am calling the fallacy. You don't have evidence for the "next step" Dems would take. "Eradicate ARs" is no more of a policy platform than making Mexico pay for a border wall and sounds like primary pandering. Come back to me when the Dem's general candidate is announcing their plans for a mandatory gun buyback bill.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I like how you're using a sarcastic tone with me when the basis of your own argument is that Sanders "won't be able to get the insane thing he wants".
    No, my own argument is that Dems are coming out as tough on guns because they are jockeying for the primary and have little priority on banning even the sales of ARs. They have their own pet projects and I doubt would waste their political capital in congress for banning AR sales. I am being sarcastic because you are quoting non-policies from Dem Primary candidates and saying "Look at this! 'Ban ARs'! that means they are going to take your guns away the first chance they get, people!" in the least charitable interpretation of policy possible. Meanwhile, Trump get's the charitable interpretations to his rants about bringing back torture practices in the military or targeting cultural sites or whatever. You don't get your own special set of rules.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  18. #178

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

    RIP nations that restrict AR access, I guess, lost to tyranny.
    Its funny how citizens of such nations have less rights then citizens of nations where one can buy an AR.

  19. #179

    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 Heathen Hammer View Post
    Its funny how citizens of such nations have less rights then citizens of nations where one can buy an AR.
    You mean like most of Europe and Canada, where you need licenses from the government to own such weapons? Idk, they seem to be alright on the Democracy index. But please, do explain on how Canada is lost to be a totalitarian regime.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #180

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

    Appeal to authority doesn't really change the fact that US is the only country with constitutionally-mandated freedom of speech. And Canada is in a pretty bad place economically, politically and socially.

Posting Permissions

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