Man, emotion levels of this thread have gotten pretty high recently.. Must be the concern for all these shooting victims. Oh wait....
This is just wrong.Exactly. A foreigner has no constitutional rights.
The guns are the real victims.Man, emotion levels of this thread have gotten pretty high recently.. Must be the concern for all these shooting victims. Oh wait....
Won't somebody think of the guns?!The guns are the real victims.
still that thin skin eh? lol....My idea really had NOTHING to do with your reply to me
Right here:Please quote where I said that.
What exactly are you saying if not to surrender our 2A rights because there is little likelihood of ever needing them (which I agree with) and they won't be enough if we actually do (which I am afraid of.) I'd still rather keep them just in case, not to mention all the other legal uses for firearms.And in fact, the above and below are complimentary to each other in our country. The right to bear arms by the general populace was to protect us from an over bearing centralized government. I mean, do you honestly think that's a possibility now? Seems unlikely. Do you know any citizens that control the amount of firepower or money that our government / ruling class does?
Sorry, I'm going to respond to your ideas and posts regardless of who you were directly replying to if you express an idea I disagree with. You can't hind behind "I wasn't talking to you." And I promise not to take your posts out of context, which I never have.Well, that's super cool. But you and I aren't the ones I was really talking about, now were we. Which, if you go back and review the posts, you responded to ME when I hadn't quoted or replied to you. So whatev's.
Look, if you can't rebut my posts then just stop replying, because this is not a rebuttal by any stretch of the imagination.
Right here:
What exactly are you saying if not to surrender our 2A rights because there is little likelihood of ever needing them (which I agree with) and they won't be enough if we actually do (which I am afraid of.) I'd still rather keep them just in case, not to mention all the other legal uses for firearms.
Sorry, I'm going to respond to your ideas and posts regardless of who you were directly replying to if you express an idea I disagree with. You can't hind behind "I wasn't talking to you." And I won't take your posts out of context, which I have not.
Ah, the old "yer emotional!" attack. Instantly nullifies all opposing opinions...oh, wait...Man, emotion levels of this thread have gotten pretty high recently.. Must be the concern for all these shooting victims. Oh wait....
There's only one reasonable argument, "I like/want my guns." Beyond that, it's just rambling. At least be honest and admit it.Ah, the old "yer emotional!" attack. Instantly nullifies all opposing opinions...oh, wait...
But we stand more of a chance if we just give up our 2A rights? Is that your argument? Really?Who said I've been trying to rebut your posts? Dude? lol...This is why I'm saying you're not really reading my posts.
I'm pragmatic. Let's not pretend that the general populace stands a chance if the Federal government ever went haywire and turned on it's citizens. You sure as hell should be afraid of it, because it's right on point.
What I would like to see is American's taking mental health and gun ownership more seriously. Because citizen on citizen gun violence needs to stop.
You didn't even respond to my point in the original post I quoted, you went into a sociology lesson.
Ah, the old "yer emotional!" attack. Instantly nullifies all opposing opinions...oh, wait...
I absolutely do want and like my guns. WTF is wrong with that? My guns have never hurt anyone. Nor have 99.92% of the guns in civilian hands. The overwhelming majority of guns in civilian hands are used for 100% legal uses, including self-defense. Your assumptions that guns = evil is incorrect.There's only one reasonable argument, "I like/want my guns." Beyond that, it's just rambling. At least be honest and admit it.
I'm not even for complete bans, but do support heavy restriction.
You can continue to post your walls of text, but your "points" have been heavily debunked in this and many other threads. It's always an appeal to emotion from you. You even used the word "opinion" just now and "fear" just above not too far away. There's no opinion on the data, it's data. Your response to it can be "opinion" (and irrational) and I'm fine with that as long as you admit it's fueled by emotion and not logic.
But we stand more of a chance if we just give up our 2A rights? Is that your argument? Really?
And where is it written it's and either/or between 2A, mental health care and responsible gun ownership?
You can't justify your position with those arguments, and your attempts to side step the debate are giving me a headache. Good night.
That's just a method for you to discount my opinion out of hand without even considering it. And tell me that an anti-gunner telling me I have the literal blood of children on my hands isn't an emotional argument? Tell me that when another assault weapons ban is proposed, after the last 10 year long ban PROVED that it didn't work, that it's not done out of emotion and fear and the desire to do something about a problem for which there is no easy answer?well, you do come off as a tad emotional on this topic.
and again, let's not pretend that 10's of millions of american's didn't vote on that same ideal.
American gun owners have compromised plenty already. Just go back and read my post about it in this very thread. You know, those posts of mine you claim to have read through, while accusing me of not reading yours.lol, wtf? where do you come up with this stuff?
hey Pal, the 2A interpretation has changed a few times in our nations history, you want realistic compromise, I'm offering it. The truth is that the 2A is pretty specific, short and sweet.
Second Amendment
www.law.cornell.edu
What position am I trying to justify? Seriously man, are you ok?
American gun owners have compromised plenty already. Just go back and read my post about it in this very thread. You know, those posts of mine you claim to have read through, while accusing me of not reading yours.
Or just keep diverting.
That's just a method for you to discount my opinion out of hand without even considering it. And tell me that an anti-gunner telling me I have the literal blood of children on my hands isn't an emotional argument? Tell me that when another assault weapons ban is proposed, after the last 10 year long ban PROVED that it didn't work, that it's not done out of emotion and fear and the desire to do something about a problem for which there is no easy answer?
Law abiding gun owners and their constitutional rights are the low hanging fruit the anti-gun lobby is after, all because they want to be seen as doing something about a problem then have no real solution for.
Nothing is wrong with that, as I've repeatedly said, it's just an emotional argument.I absolutely do want and like my guns. WTF is wrong with that? My guns have never hurt anyone. Nor have 99.92% of the guns in civilian hands. The overwhelming majority of guns in civilian hands are used for 100% legal uses, including self-defense. Your assumptions that guns = evil is incorrect.
So, exactly which of those facts have been debunked?
I never even implied something so ridiculous.
I did make a joke about the whole voter ID issue. It's basically a non-issue because voter fraud doesn't exist to the level of any real concern. But let me explain the joke to you:
The right ridiculously insists we need to pass voter ID laws to prevent non-citizens from voting. Obviously this is because they think it will prevent low income and minority voters, who traditionally vote democrat, from voting to their benefit.
While the left ridiculously insists that asking a voter to show a $20 state issued ID to vote is an undue burden that would break democracy because we can't expect low income and minority voters to prove who they are before exercising one of the most powerful and important rights of our democracy.
All while the left insist we mandate burdensome taxes, fees, licencing, background checks, registration and even psychiatric evaluations before a person be allowed to exercise their 2A rights. Which I find a bit hypocritical of the left. Not that the right isn't equally or even more hypocritical when it suits their needs.
Which is why I advocate the correct answer is usually somewhere in the middle of what the two sides want. And, why I made the joke.
I don't know why you keep bringing the discussion back around to ...
You don't happen to use a Botany related ID on another board, do you?Or just keep diverting.
I didn't think this kind of open racism was a thing around here.
And that's only the beginning. This is at least their third attack on US soil. Then there is 'chopchop square'. The nation is evil incarnate.Nothing racist about what I said, I didn't mention anything about the Arab, Iranian, Kurdish, or Turkish peoples. The KSA exports Wahhabism, terrorism, and is the primary backers of ISIS, this is on top of the attack at NAS: Pensacola by KSA military personnel. We should cancel all arms sales to the KSA immediately while detaining and then expelling all KSA military personnel after they are cleared.
And that's only the beginning. This is at least their third attack on US soil. Then there is 'chopchop square'. The nation is evil incarnate.
'I respect the rights of all men to defend themselves against aggressors, regardless of the era or defense capabilities available.'There's only one reasonable argument, "I like/want my guns." Beyond that, it's just rambling. At least be honest and admit it.
These points have been gone over ad infinitum.. Rights given by whom? Inalienable? What are reasonable restrictions? Defend to what end?'I respect the rights of all men to defend themselves against aggressors, regardless of the era or defense capabilities available.'