So, should children be able to buy guns?
So, should children be able to buy guns?
Optio, Legio I Latina
Children used to own guns for decades. It only became a "scary thing" due to legacy media fearmongering.
..and let's include the words "fun", family", and"sharing the experience", "My first rifle", "First Love. First Car. First Rimfire"
Keep america safe. Guns are a bulwark against tyranny,and foreign invasions.How to Survive a Russian Invasion of the United States
America is so comprised at this point in time that our national security is pretty much non-existent. Why? Our so called leaders belief and participation in a global economy!
Oh dear.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
delete
I think this is the key point of this issue. The whole gun laws nonsense is merely obfuscation.
There should be measures put in place to ensure the rights of minorities, this includes the rights of rural citizens whose will and needs are overshadowed by the louder and more numerous voices of the urban population whose needs/wills differ strongly and are often at odds with one another.
No changes. America is a Federal Republic, this is how a federal republic is meant to work.- The reason why Democrats were elected in Virginia was because of influx of population from other blue states. Essentially what is happening is Democrat voters escape results of Democrat policies in blue states - only to vote for these policies in red states they just moved to. What changes need to be implemented to prevent that? If someone from a blue state moves to a red state, should his vote count for the previous state at least for the next one or two election cycles (and visa versa)?
It's a delicate line that needs to be walked. "Defamation" of this kind is achieved through popular opinion. Popular opinion is already against gun-rights activists. The nature of mass media is to reinforce previously established opinion. I don't see what can be done, except draconian censorship.- Should media be held at least morally responsible for openly defaming gun-rights activists?
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
-Betrand Russell
Gun rights are not the only issue, but they are very far from nonsense. It is easier to treat unarmed population worse then the armed one.
The problem is people who run away from results of Democrat policies only to vote for those policies in the new state.No changes. America is a Federal Republic, this is how a federal republic is meant to work.
Negative opinion of gun activists is result of smear campaign by mainstream media and anti-gun politicians, both stem from elites that would rather see population disarmed (as elites themselves enjoy guarded gated neighborhoods and armed bodyguards).It's a delicate line that needs to be walked. "Defamation" of this kind is achieved through popular opinion. Popular opinion is already against gun-rights activists. The nature of mass media is to reinforce previously established opinion. I don't see what can be done, except draconian censorship.
So elites are clearly a problem.
What does that have to do with the 2A?
Well, you know, when you see a spade...
I never said it was, I was speaking to the limits to what Americans believe regarding ARs and the 2A.
Sure, if you want to have a grade-level take on party primaries, they are lying. Would you consider that noteworthy?
No, just a Liberal.
Why? So the tyrants can have an edge when the revolution begins?
How?
I never quite followed this line of reasoning: if the point of the 2A is, in fact, to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government, why are proponents of this interpretation comfortable with restrictions on many types of weapons that would be incredibly useful in that instance? I mean, you are for restricting citizen access to mortars and grenade launchers, right? Why? Those would be incredibly useful in resisting a tyrannical takeover. If this is your view, where are you drawing your line on weapon access?
Good, then you would know how the 2A isn't really close to being threatened right now.
Classic.
You mean like harping that the Libs are coming for law abiding citizen's guns?
It only cost functional governance.
Hey, if it works, it works.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
VA limiting 2A rights concerns the 2A.
Well, you know, when you see a spade...Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
According to Pew, most Americans do not believe that AR's are covered by the 2A.I never said it was, I was speaking to the limits to what Americans believe regarding ARs and the 2A.
Originally Posted by Pew ResearchI just wanted to hear you say it.Sure, if you want to have a grade-level take on party primaries, they are lying. Would you consider that noteworthy?
Nobody's perfect.No, just a Liberal.
The further the tyrants' advantage, the greater the people's glory!Why? So the tyrants can have an edge when the revolution begins?
See:How?
-> Post 49 and;
-> Post 51
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 never quite followed this line of reasoning: if the point of the 2A is, in fact, to allow citizens to resist a tyrannical government, why are proponents of this interpretation comfortable with restrictions on many types of weapons that would be incredibly useful in that instance? I mean, you are for restricting citizen access to mortars and grenade launchers, right? Why? Those would be incredibly useful in resisting a tyrannical takeover. If this is your view, where are you drawing your line on weapon access?
Yes, because the federal government isn't controlled by Democrats.Good, then you would know how the 2A isn't really close to being threatened right now.
I thought it was pretty original personally.Classic.
A few thousand 2A absolutists marching in VA isn't the same as the entire liberal establishment (D.C, the press, academia etc.) throwing an unrelenting temper tantrum for four years (and not just in the US). Once they've moved on and the frothing has receded, you'll realize that I wasn't such a Trump loyalist after all.You mean like harping that the Libs are coming for law abiding citizen's guns?
As per my arguments in the the impeachment thread Trump is a consequence of institutional damage, not the cause of it. In any case, if this is what dysfunction looks like (improved living standards, the continuation of peace and increasing life expectancy) then we don't much need "functional governance" after all. Roll back the state I say.It only cost functional governance.
It only works if you don't concede that the Democratic candidates were lying!Hey, if it works, it works.
Last edited by Cope; February 02, 2020 at 07:21 PM.
Apparently not, unless the law has caused a change in interpretation of the 2A.
What a drama queen. I didn't refer to you as a bad guy, just a partisan hack.
Ok? Am I missing a point here? Maybe you want to give that part of the post you are responding to another read.
Grade school logic is so cute.
We can't all be partisan hacks.
Then take away the guns, duh.
You never said how, you just said:
Step 1: Ban certain gun sales
Step 2:????
Step 3: Tyranny
To use a trending argument template: Slippery slope argument, try again.
Wait, why are you placing the capacity to resist the state at ARs? What is magical about the AR that makes it necessary in resisting the state that doesn't apply to other weaponry I have mentioned?
Ya need two thirds in both houses to change an amendment. I don't see Dems getting that anytime soon.
I am so sorry.
Yeah, 2A alarmists are limited to a few thousand people marching in VA. Right.
You will kick him to the curb eventually, like the Right did with Bush, but not before you swing him like a bat as hard as you can. Until then, well, I don't think I have ever seen someone so radically change their foreign policy views in real time before.
Never said Trump was the cause of it. No where on these forums have I ever said that. I appreciate the hack characterization, though.
Didn't say it was currently dysfunctional either. I was saying the cost of partisan hackery is, ultimately, functional governance.
What? Of course it still works. I don't remember seeing a change in the rules.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
Slippery slope is kind of real when it comes to government infringements on individual freedoms, so he is correct.You never said how, you just said:
Step 1: Ban certain gun sales
Step 2:????
Step 3: Tyranny
To use a trending argument template: Slippery slope argument, try again.
The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.
It is a RIGHT, not a privilege.
There are no exceptions.
Any law preventing someone from owning a firearm, of any kind, is unconstitutional, and illegal.
Uuuhhhmmm….. no exceptions?
People in prisons?
The mentally ill?
Suspected terrorists?
Known criminals?
Children?
Those under the influence of controlled substances?
Illegal immigrants?
Aeroplane passengers?
Visitors to the White House?
Tourists? (I have to admit that when I was a tourist in Atlanta, I wielded a .50 desert eagle and it was epic)
As a European... yeah, it carries all of the hallmarks of being the definition of American nonsense. Also, it seems by statistics, that an armed population treats itself worse than an unarmed population, such that mistreatment from the government becomes superfluous.
Negative opinion on guns is the default the world over with practically zero media influence on the topic, only America is aberrant in this regard.Negative opinion of gun activists is result of smear campaign by mainstream media and anti-gun politicians, both stem from elites that would rather see population disarmed (as elites themselves enjoy guarded gated neighborhoods and armed bodyguards).
So elites are clearly a problem
About half of Americans support stricter gun control regulations. Are you saying that half of Americans live in gated communities?
By the same token, would you say that the requirement to have a driving licence (based on suitability) to use a car indicated a long term plan, by the government, to infringe upon individual freedoms or to even deprive the population of their use?Slippery slope is kind of real when it comes to government infringements on individual freedoms.
Cars and guns are dangerous, it only makes good sense that there should be reasonable limitations on those who can be permitted their use.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
-Betrand Russell
An opinion of a former mafia hit man, and under boss...
Citizens of certain European countries have significantly less individual freedoms then Americans do, which is the point.
it is only negative as "default" in authoritarian regimes or authoritarian-leaning regimes.Negative opinion on guns is the default the world over with practically zero media influence on the topic, only America is aberrant in this regard.
About half of Americans support stricter gun control regulations. Are you saying that half of Americans live in gated communities?
As for public opinion, it was already pointed out to be mainly result of smear campaign and misniformation from corporate media and politicians, both institutions being coincidentally owned by elite. Hence why we never see any real grassroots anti-gun movements, but plenty for the opposite.
By the same token, would you say that the requirement to have a driving licence (based on suitability) to use a car indicated a long term plan, by the government, to infringe upon individual freedoms or to even deprive the population of their use?
Cars and guns are dangerous, it only makes good sense that there should be reasonable limitations on those who can be permitted their use.You can't defend yourself from criminals or tyrants with cars.[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Having a constitutional right doesn't mean it can't be regulated. It's not a blank check either. There is a reason why people often try to deflect simple questions such as what Himster directed. They have no answer.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."