Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 248

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

  1. #21

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

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

  2. #22
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,651

    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 Love Mountain View Post
    They're not opposing confiscation of arms because nobody is actually confiscating their arms en masse or wrote a bill to do so. They're opposing the laws listed, which they probably didn't even glance at.
    As stated, they're opposing corrosive laws which, in this case, include intrusive red flag articles.

    You didn't demonstrate this, and I don't know where you're getting this from.
    I've already demonstrated it to you in the Democratic primaries thread. Of course you blindly denied it on the basis that leftist tabloids like Vox were able to drag up some partisan "academics" who were willing to regurgitate the orange man bad line.

    I'm well aware about the differences between an extermination camp and a concentration camp.
    Yeah, because I've just told you.

    I'm not an authority to lecture anybody on the subject because I'm not an expert on the subject matter.
    Then stop doing it?

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

    I'm not asking anybody to believe me.
    Just as well really.

    I'm merely pointing out that these people and people like you will oppose common sense measures because you'd cut off your nose to spite the face.
    No, I oppose your so-called "common sense" measures because we all know very well that "progressives" will inevitably use them as platform for launching the next wave of restrictions.

    This is why you're engaging in a slipper slope argument, because you'd rather do that than argue against the bill on its own merit.
    As I said, only fools would believe that liberals have limiting principles on firearms.

    Nice bait, I've never sided with Islamists. Nice try. Again, demonstrating the absurd mentality of "not with us then against us".
    We've all read your desperate excuses for the regime in Tehran and its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. People can read the thread if they want, though your accord with the Iranians over their use of force against the western powers speaks for itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    The use of force against United States and its allies is justified by decades of belligerence by those players against Iran.
    The stated purpose of the 2A can be whatever it wants.
    The 2A isn't a flexible, self-governing entity. It's a clear right enshrined in the Constitution.

    It has never stopped a tyrannical state, nor is it necessary to do so.
    In admitting that you have no attachment in principle to the 2A, you're justifying the belief that you'll happily see it eroded into dust via incrementalism - which of course you would.

    Stripping the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with my contempt for certain aspects of democracy and everything to do with basic public safety.
    Again, this is the same argument you will make at every stage of restrictions. And that's why supporters of the 2A are loathed to trust liberals with Constitutional rights. Trying to appease people with no limiting principles is a waste of time; persistent opposition is an appropriate response.

    Though you can keep parroting whatever justification you want. It doesn't make any difference in the end, you're on the side of people who are opposing basic background checks.
    Whilst you're on the side of people who dismiss the wisdom of the founders because, as always, young progressives know better than everyone.
    Last edited by Cope; January 24, 2020 at 03:49 AM.

  3. #23
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,651

    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 Love Mountain View Post
    As a comedic tidbit,



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

    From the US Holocaust Museum



    Not that this whole tangent is interesting to me. I just thought it was an entirely irrelevant potshot and at worst, this is accusing me of calling a toad, a frog.
    Just to respond to this retrospective try-harding: the purpose of highlighting the difference between extermination camps and concentration camps was to rebuke your knavish suggestion that I (or anyone else) believes that gas chambers are a mandatory feature of concentration camps. Despite your insinuation, no one is claiming that the border detention facilitates oughtn't be considered concentration camps because they lack killing chambers.

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

    Your original comment:

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    I too, believe, that mass incarceration of civilians without a trial is definitely not a concentration camp. After all, they don't have gas chambers.
    Last edited by Cope; January 24, 2020 at 04:08 AM.

  4. #24

    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
    As stated, they're opposing corrosive laws which, in this case, include intrusive red flag articles.
    Didn't realize background checks for gun purchases were corrosive. Nor did I realize that the government shouldn't be able to confiscate firearms from people who want to shoot up schools.

    I've already demonstrated it to you in the Democratic primaries thread. Of course you blindly denied it on the basis that leftist tabloids like Vox were able to drag up some partisan "academics" who were willing to regurgitate the orange man bad line.
    You can assume that if you want, the onus on proving that they are partisan is on you. Of course I suppose one could argue that siding with a Democrat for any reason is already blindly partisan.

    Yeah, because I've just told you.
    It's not my fault you immediately thought I was referencing extermination camps.

    Then stop doing it?
    Nobody was lecturing you. You're the one who brought up "concentration camps".

    Appeal to authority.
    You're the one who's claiming it's inaccurate.

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

    As I said, only fools would believe that liberals have limiting principles on firearms.
    Only fools seek them for the purpose of dethroning a tyranny.

    We've all read your desperate excuses for the regime in Tehran and its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. People can read the thread if they want, though your accord with the Iranians over their use of force against the western powers speaks for itself.
    Your inability to comprehend my stance on Iran and the Middle East has been noted. As has been your selective quoting.

    The 2A isn't a flexible, self-governing entity. It's a clear right enshrined in the Constitution.
    This doesn't address a shred of what I said.

    In admitting that you have no attachment in principle to the 2A, you're justifying the belief that you'll happily see it eroded into dust via incrementalism - which of course you would.
    Whether I am a progressive who seeks to take away guns, which I'm not, I'm actually pro gun, the fact that 2A zealots would oppose common sense measures for the sake of opposing liberals is far more abhorrent than any agenda I could dream up. You can continue to support this slippery slope nonsense, it doesn't make the opposition any more idiotic.

    Again, this is the same argument you will make at every stage of restrictions. And that's why supporters of the 2A are loathed to trust liberals with Constitutional rights.
    This is the same argument that should be made at every stage that's not wrong on its own merit. Otherwise, following that logic, we should be dismantling everything form the ATF to Social Security because those can be used as a platform for a big brother state.

    Whilst you're on the side of people who dismiss the wisdom of the founders because, as always, young progressives know better than everyone.
    Not at all. I simply refuse to assume that people who are long dead are correct about everything. Especially when their "wisdom" on the issue of the 2nd amendment has failed to materialize over hundreds of years. I think the testing period on that feature has been long enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Just to respond to this retrospective try-harding: the purpose of highlighting the difference between extermination camps and concentration camps was to rebuke your knavish suggestion that I (or anyone else) believes that gas chambers are a mandatory feature of concentration camps and that it is for this reason that the border detention facilitates could not fall into that category .
    Sure it was. The only reason I brought it up was because your accusation suggested that concentration camps cannot have gas chambers, and that only extermination camps did. I actually thought so for a moment after your brought up extermination camps which is why I Googled it. Turns out no, I wasn't wrong, and my reference to the gas chambers in order to make the German reference clear wasn't inaccurate. So your accusation really is out of nowhere, though not out of character. As is this ridiculous tendency to break up posts into tiny, little pieces that are unintelligeble to anyone who isn't following the conversation.
    Last edited by Love Mountain; January 24, 2020 at 04:09 AM.

  5. #25
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,651

    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 Love Mountain View Post
    Didn't realize background checks for gun purchases were corrosive.
    There are plenty of things which you don't realize.

    Nor did I realize that the government shouldn't be able to confiscate firearms from people who want to shoot up schools.
    Because of course, that's what the legislation says isn't it?

    You can assume that if you want, the onus on proving that they are partisan is on you. Of course I suppose one could argue that siding with a Democrat for any reason is already blindly partisan.
    I've already illustrated the point in another thread. The term "concentration camps" was deliberately used with reference to the border facilities in attempt to create a phony emotional link between the Trump administration and Nazi Germany. In the minds of progressives, there is no distinction between a desire for border management and fascism and/or race hate and the liberal press do love an opportunity to spread a moral panic.

    It's not my fault you immediately thought I was referencing extermination camps.
    I immediately thought that you didn't know the difference between a concentration camp and an extermination camp. And I was right.

    Nobody was lecturing you. You're the one who brought up "concentration camps".
    How is that I knew you believed that the border detention facilitates were "concentration camps"?

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

    Lol okay. No to background checks.
    Correct. If, as and when you demonstrate your commitment to the 2A in principle then we can discuss firearm limits in good faith. Until then, you'll have to accept that you (and others like you) simply aren't trusted.

    Only fools seek them for the purpose of dethroning a tyranny.
    You mean like the founding revolutionaries? I feel almost embarrassed to tell you that even your buddy Karl Marx was an even more ardent proponent of an armed citizenry than I am.

    Your inability to comprehend my stance on Iran and the Middle East has been noted. As has been your selective quoting.
    Your "stance" on Iran is the default hard left, social justice position which seeks to justify violence against the US and Israel via whatabouterry and on the basis of alleged "oppression". There's nothing complex to "comprehend" about it.

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

    Whether I am a progressive who seeks to take away guns, which I'm not, I'm actually pro gun
    Well you've openly conceded that you have no interest in the 2A in principle - which must mean that you're so-called "pro-gun" position is derived from something else. What is it?

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

    This is the same argument that should be made at every stage that's not wrong on its own merit. Otherwise, following that logic, we should be dismantling everything form the ATF to Social Security because those can be used as a platform for a big brother state.
    Some people would argue that. For my part, I don't see the existence of social security - unlike the persistent attacks against the 2A (and 1A) as being a threat to the Constitution.

    Not at all. I simply refuse to assume that people who are long dead are correct about everything. Especially when their "wisdom" on the issue of the 2nd amendment has failed to materialize over hundreds of years. I think the testing period on that feature has been long enough.
    Personally I'd rather take the advice of men who founded one the most successful states in human history over know-it-all 21st century "social justice" leftists whose ideological raison d'etre is the denigration of said state *cough 1619*. That's just me though. Now prove that the absence of tyrannical government over the past 250 years isn't a partial result of the existence of the 2A.

    Sure it was. The only reason I brought it up was because your accusation suggested that concentration camps cannot have gas chambers, and that only extermination camps did. I actually thought so for a moment after your brought up extermination camps which is why I Googled it. Turns out no, I wasn't wrong, and my reference to the gas chambers in order to make the German reference clear wasn't inaccurate. So your accusation really is out of nowhere, though not out of character.
    Stop digging a hole. Retrospective Google searches to find a technical "win" won't convince me that you know what you're talking about (especially given your previous comments). Just take the L and move on.

    As is this ridiculous tendency to break up posts into tiny, little pieces that are unintelligeble to anyone who isn't following the conversation.
    Well if you didn't make so many vacuous points I wouldn't have to rebuke them all would I?
    Last edited by Cope; January 24, 2020 at 05:04 AM.

  6. #26

    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
    There are plenty of things which you don't realize.
    Do tell. How are background checks for gun purchases corrosive?

    Because of course, that's what the legislation says isn't it?
    As far as you know.

    I've already illustrated the point in another thread. The term "concentration camps" was deliberately used with reference to the border facilities in attempt to create a phony emotional link between the Trump administration and Nazi Germany. In the minds of progressives, there is no distinction between a desire for border management and fascism and/or race hate and the liberal press do love an opportunity to spread a moral panic.
    Like I said, because it hurts your sensibilities, not because incarceration of civilians is wrong. Yes, you've played this violin in another thread before.

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

    How is that I knew you believed that the border detention facilitates were "concentration camps"?
    Because you brought it up in the first place.

    Which it is.
    I'm well aware that of your opinion.

    Correct. If, as and when you demonstrate your commitment to the 2A in principle then we can discuss firearm limits in good faith. Until then, you'll have to accept that you (and others like you) simply aren't trusted.
    I'm not the one being trusted. State government is, which changes regularly. With elections. Not that anything will stop people from opposing basic background checks introduced by a Democrat.

    You mean like the founding revolutionaries? I feel almost embarrassed to tell you that even your buddy Karl Marx was an even more ardent proponent of an armed citizenry than I am.
    Amusing. This would be relevant if I argued to disarm the military. Funny, calling Marx my buddy.

    Your "stance" on Iran is the default hard left, social justice position which seeks to justify violence against the US and Israel via whatabouterry and on the basis of alleged "oppression". There's nothing complex to "comprehend" about it.
    Wrong. And pointing out the intricacies of the Iran-US relationship is not whataboutery. This would be akin to referencing the creation of Israel as whataboutery when talking about Palestinian insurgents.

    You claimed that "the stated purpose of the 2A can be whatever it wants to be" as if to imply that amendment somehow had agency. It doesn't. The stated purpose of the 2A is to protect the free State.
    No I didn't. I claimed that the "stated purpose of the 2A can be whatever it wants to be" to highlight that it is irrelevant what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is. The only thing the 2A has accomplished, is getting more guns in civilian hands, and consequently, out into the streets.

    Well you've openly conceded that you have no interest in the 2A in principle - which must mean that you're so-called "pro-gun" position is derived from something else. What is it?
    Absolutely not. I am pro gun because firearms can be used as responsible, recreational weapons when well-regulated. I think some regulations need to be repealed, while many others need to be added.

    And you can keep denying the incrementalist objectives of the left.
    You can keep claiming that it is. The reality is that you are opposing common sense legislation and efforts to improve public safety. Because "libruls".

    Some people would argue that. For my part, I don't see the existence of social security - unlike the persistent attacks against the 2A (and 1A) as being a threat to the Constitution.
    Attacks on the 2nd amendment aren't a threat to the Constitution. The Constitution is meant to be an evolving document. That's why the amendments are there in the first place.

    Personally I'd rather take the advice of men who founded one the most successful states in human history over know-it-all 21st century "social justice" leftists whose ideological raison d'etre is the denigration of said state *cough 1619*. That's just me though.
    You'd take advice of people who died in the 18th-19th century and have next to no knowledge about the workings of the modern state. You're not even taking their "advice". You're blatantly piggybacking off the reputation of the people who wrote a document that had to be amended a number of times to justify opposition to basic gun control. All to appease your distaste for anything that smells of "leftism", whatever the hell that is.

    Now prove that the absence of tyrannical government over the past 250 years isn't a partial result of the existence of the 2A.
    I'm not going to prove a negative to you. On the other hand, I doubt you'll find any major event in American history where the 2nd amendment has played an important part.

    Stop digging a hole. Retrospective Google searches to find a technical "win" won't convince me that you know what you're talking about (especially given your previous comments). Just take the L and move on.
    Take your own advice. You're the one who started this whole charade, and then accused me of confusing concentration and extermination camps when you're the one who jumped the gun. You're still pursuing this ridiculous tangent, and I'm assuming that it's simply for the sake of getting the last word in. I've already explained my word choice and the subsequent exchange. But go ahead and keep flapping about how I don't know something or how I'm googling something as if it's relevant to the thread instead of your own ego.

    Well if you didn't make so many vacuous points I wouldn't have to rebuke them all would I?
    Yeah, you're doing real good with telling me all about your beliefs and opinions as if they are facts. Tell us some more about "partisan" historians and your bulletproof process of authenticating their credentials.

  7. #27

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

  8. #28
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,651

    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 Love Mountain View Post
    Do tell. How are background checks for gun purchases corrosive?
    As explained above, what's being resisted is the liberal incrementalism.

    As far as you know.
    Glad you've conceded that's not what the legislation says.

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

    Yes, you've played this violin in another thread before.
    You're the one playing the "violin" by appropriating the language of the Holocaust to justify destroying reasonable and necessary immigration controls.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Wrong.
    Not wrong.

    And pointing out the intricacies of the Iran-US relationship is not whataboutery. This would be akin to referencing the creation of Israel as whataboutery when talking about Palestinian insurgents.
    Even if you knew the "intricacies of the Iran-US" relationship, that still didn't stop you repeatedly referring to the actions of Israel, SA, Turkey and others to justify Iran's behaviour. Not that it matters anyway: as everyone can see by reading the thread, Legio_Italica put you to bed comfortably on the details.

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

    Absolutely not. I am pro gun because firearms can be used as responsible, recreational weapons when well-regulated. I think some regulations need to be repealed, while many others need to be added.
    The point of the 2A isn't "recreational" use: that's a beneficial ancillary feature, nothing more.

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

    Attacks on the 2nd amendment aren't a threat to the Constitution. The Constitution is meant to be an evolving document. That's why the amendments are there in the first place.
    Then propose an amendment to override the 2nd. rather than constantly trying to vandalise it into oblivion.

    You'd take advice of people who died in the 18th-19th century and have next to no knowledge about the workings of the modern state. You're not even taking their "advice". You're blatantly piggybacking off the reputation of the people who wrote a document that had to be amended a number of times to justify opposition to basic gun control.
    They had enough knowledge to create a founding document and Bill of Rights which provides one of, if not the, single best frameworks for a prosperous civil society in all of human history.

    All to appease your distaste for anything that smells of "leftism", whatever the hell that is.
    If my deference to the Constitution puts me at odds with "leftism" then so be it.

    I'm not going to prove a negative to you. On the other hand, I doubt you'll find any major event in American history where the 2nd amendment has played an important part.
    It's not a coincidence that the armed sections of the US population haven't suffered anywhere near the indignities of state abuse that have been suffered by unarmed groups (Jews, Indians, Irish, Russians etc.) worldwide.

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

    Yeah, you're doing real good with telling me all about your beliefs and opinions as if they are facts. Tell us some more about "partisan" historians and your bulletproof process of authenticating their credentials.
    The fact that you haven't even mentioned any of these so-called historians by name proves my point. At best you'd come up with some technical win which still wouldn't justify the obvious appeal to the Holocaust that the concentration camp comparison is designed to draw.

  9. #29
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,651

    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 Gromovnik View Post
    Was scandinavianism founded in 1619?

  10. #30
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15,707

    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
    Then propose an amendment to override the 2nd. rather than constantly trying to vandalise it into oblivion.
    Why? Heller v. DC solved that answer already. I'll post it since no one wants to bother to read it.

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

    (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
    Limiting the 2nd Amendment is perfectly Constitutional. No need for another amendment.



    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    It's not a coincidence that the armed sections of the US population haven't suffered anywhere near the indignities of state abuse that have been suffered by unarmed groups (Jews, Indians, Irish, Russians etc.) worldwide.
    Native Americans were armed. That didn't stop them from being massacred and forced onto reservations and their children being taken away from them. Even African-Americans were allowed to own firearms after slavery. That didn't stop segregation or Jim Crow. It didn't stop them from being lynched by racist white mobs who ironically could also be armed. The even faintest idea guns are what is keeping my government at bay is utterly ridiculous.
    Last edited by Vanoi; January 24, 2020 at 08:52 AM.

  11. #31
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,651

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

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

    Limiting the 2nd Amendment is perfectly Constitutional. No need for another amendment.
    I didn't say that limiting the 2nd. amendment was illegal. That doesn't mean I have to trust liberals (many of whom are incrementalists who seem to think that 2A was designed to facilitate hunting or sport shooting) to draw the line. That's why, broadly speaking, they should be legally resisted wherever and whenever possible.

    Native Americans were armed. That didn't stop them from being massacred and forced onto reservations and their children being taken away from them. Even African-Americans were allowed to own firearms after slavery. That didn't stop segregation or Jim Crow. It didn't stop them from being lynched by racist white mobs who ironically could also be armed. that even faintest idea guns are what is keeping my government at bay is utterly ridiculous.
    Just because armed groups/individuals can be subjugated doesn't prove that being armed doesn't work, either as form of deterrence or resistance. The natives may have been doomed from the start, but I'm sure that many (if not most) would have preferred to die fighting rather than rolling over and accepting their humiliation unopposed.
    Last edited by Cope; January 24, 2020 at 09:14 AM.

  12. #32

    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
    As explained above, what's being resisted is the liberal incrementalism.
    Indeed, and that explanation was addressed. Expressing your "resistance" by opposing simple background checks on gun purchases is idiotic.

    Glad you've conceded that's not what the legislation says.
    Glad you chose to ignore the point and opt for pedantry, as usual.

    Civilians are incarcerated all the time. Tens of thousands of them are in jail right now either being processed, awaiting trial or serving short sentences. Holding people temporarily until a determination with respect to their citizenship/residence status can be made isn't "wrong", its one of the most practical solutions for managing migratory flows. The US has borders, get over it.
    Civilians have a right to trial and aren't held indefinitely. Families aren't typically separated en masse nor are children thrown into cages. That's not regular conduct. There is nothing practical about holding tens of thousands of people, most of whom are harmless, in camps paid for by the taxpayer for no other purpose than to indulge the President's inflammatory rhetoric. The United States does have border, thank you for pointing out that irrelevant fact.

    You're the one playing the "violin" by appropriating the language of the Holocaust to justify destroying reasonable and necessary immigration controls.
    I didn't appropriate anything. I simply understand the point being made, rounding up tens of thousands of people and holding them in sub-standard conditions for no reason than their migration status is wrong. The one crying about how the referencing the Holocaust hurts your feelings is you.

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

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

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

    Wrong. It's because you gave a bleeding heart speech in another thread where you sought create a ludicrous comparison between the forced labor camps of WW2 where thousands of people were worked to death, starved, perished of disease or were otherwise executed with border detention facilities in the US.
    And I'm sure you gave an equally desperate insistence that the word "concentration camp" is being cheapened and is offensive to Jewish survivors. Yes, I'm well aware that you don't care about the people being detained by the Trump administration. That's not the issue, referencing the Holocaust is.

    The misery of the SS's labor camps are actually well documented. I can guarantee you that the conditions at the US border are barely comparable.
    And I assure you, the Nazis didn't copyright the word "concentration camp".

    If the Democrats ditched the incrementalism, they'd be trusted.
    And if Republicans actually did something, maybe something would get done.

    Ah, I see we're going to play a semantic dance where if you argue that the revolutionaries were the military that disproves the need for an armed citizenry, even though the colonial militas were in effect, armed subjects.
    You tell me. You're the one who started this idiotic trend. Though yes, go on. Tell us how the firearms hidden in their closets, rather than the other 99% of the war effort was responsible for overthrowing the British. Whom I struggle to call tyrannical by the standards of that time.

    Maybe if you stopped, "parroting talking points" (as you like to say) from social justice leftists and swooning over the contributions of Marxist thought, people wouldn't suppose your allegiance to the man himself.
    Talking points that are in opposition yours, aren't automatically Marxist. Nor is recognizing Marx's contributions to society somehow marking me as a Marxist.

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

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

    Good. Civilians owning firearms is a great way of limiting state overreach.
    Sure it is. Tell us more about it. Well? Any notable examples?

    The point of the 2A isn't "recreational" use: that's a beneficial ancillary feature, nothing more.
    It's only feature. It has yet to depose any tyrants or make any mark on US history that's not related to school shootings.

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

    Then propose an amendment to override the 2nd. rather than constantly trying to vandalise it into oblivion.
    "Vandalize it". Yes, people are definitely unable to buy firearms.

    They had enough knowledge to create a founding document and Bill of Rights which provides one of, if not the, single best frameworks for a prosperous civil society in all of human history.
    In its original form, it has allowed one of the longest apartheid in modern history. But your worship of people who deliberately permitted slavery is noted. In fact, I can see why that sort of elitism and negligence would appeal to you.

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

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

    TL;DR. Take the L.
    I have no reason to.

    The fact that you haven't even mentioned any of these so-called historians by name proves my point. At best you'd come up with some technical win which still wouldn't justify the obvious appeal to the Holocaust that the concentration camp comparison is designed to draw.
    I'm not going to bother doing the work for you. You're the one who brought up this tangent to begin with, if you want to make some sort of snarky point, be a dear and do the Googling yourself. That said, your preemptive admission of defeat is appreciated.

  13. #33

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

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

  14. #34
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    15,707

    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 didn't say that limiting the 2nd. amendment was illegal. That doesn't mean I have to trust liberals (many of whom are incrementalists who seem to think that 2A was designed to facilitate hunting or sport shooting) to draw the line. That's why, broadly speaking, they should be legally resisted wherever and whenever possible.
    And they can be to a point. The above Supreme Court case affirmed an American's right to own a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense. 2nd Amendment is protected to a point and even if liberals want to, they couldn't simply get rid of it.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Just because armed groups/individuals can be subjugated doesn't prove that being armed doesn't work, either as form of deterrence or resistance. The natives may have been doomed from the start, but I'm sure that many (if not most) would have preferred to die fighting rather than rolling over and accepting their humiliation unopposed.
    In their case it didn't and it was you claiming that being armed allowed you to resist a tyrannical government. Many natives found out why it was useless to fight and stopped to save their people which was a wise decision. If you read the source i posted, the Supreme Court doesn't even mention resisting a tyrannical government as a lawful reason to own a firearm.

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

  15. #35
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,651

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

    At this point it simply comes down to what is and what is not a fair amount of regulation and restriction when regarding firearms.
    I'm not disagreeing with that. I simply distrust liberals' motives and oppose their attempts to ban, among other weapons, assault rifles.

    In their case it didn't and it was you claiming that being armed allowed you to resist a tyrannical government.
    They did resist the US government for many years. In the end they lost.

    Many natives found out why it was useless to fight and stopped to save their people which was a wise decision.
    That's not a justification for pursuing pacifism/subservience in the first place. Of course they stopped when it became futile to continue.

    If you read the source i posted, the Supreme Court doesn't even mention resisting a tyrannical government as a lawful reason to own a firearm.
    So far as I'm concerned, resisting a tyrannical government falls under the category of self-defence. Though of course, were a rogue government to emerge, I doubt it would care much about what the SC had to say about anything.

    Regular citizenry being armed will not stop a real determined government who wishes to impose tyrannical rule. Even during the American Revolution militias did fight but they couldn't have done it alone without the Continental Army and foreign forces providing help. Using this as an argument for the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous when they are far more simple and reasonable intentions for owning a firearm.
    There are too many unknown variables to determine whether an armed citizenry would be effective against the state under all, or even most circumstances. That doesn't mean that an armed populace is in an equal position to an unarmed populace.

  16. #36

    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 Love Mountain View Post
    I am pro gun because firearms can be used as responsible, recreational weapons when well-regulated. I think some regulations need to be repealed...
    Which regulations need to be repealed?
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; January 24, 2020 at 12:58 PM. Reason: Continuity.

  17. #37
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    5,093

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

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

  18. #38

    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 Infidel144 View Post
    Which regulations need to be repealed?
    Bans on high capacity magazines, Title II firearm classification, make state level gun laws that cover either one of those sections, illegal. That's for starters. Of course I'm also a proponent of heavy supply controls in regards to firearms so I doubt 2A supporters are going to support my position. I've written about this before, and my general position is that I am against restrictions on firearm types. Instead, I favor licensing, registration, and heavy oversight of FFLs.

  19. #39

    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 disagreeing with that. I simply distrust liberals' motives and oppose their attempts to ban, among other weapons, assault rifles.
    You don't have to trust their motives, just their limitation in power. By what vehicle do you think the Libs could even touch the 2nd amendment? A new amendment?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #40

    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 Love Mountain View Post
    The horror. Banning firearms around government buildings. And why?
    Why should they be banned? Should politician's security detail not have guns as well? What if some politician or his bodyguard decided to become violent?
    Totally unreasonable. Authoritarian! End of Democracy! What next? Will they demand licensing for simply driving out cars???? Just step one of a Big Brother nanny state!!!
    Certain states don't even have any requirements for concealed carry, yet no apocalypse happened there. Its almost like guns aren't the problem.
    *Gasp*

    How can Trump stand by and just watch while they blatantly tear the guns out of our arms because we threatened to storm the Richmond Capitol building with our AR-15s???
    Or if someone who simply doesn't like you claims that you did.

    Let's abolish the ATF in its entirety.
    We can't do that, where would violent drug cartels get their guns if there is no ATF to run "fast and furious" for them?

Posting Permissions

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