# CIVIL discussion on Current Issues.  If you can't stay CIVIL, then please just stay out of this thread.



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
No name calling or threats.
Just say I respectfully disagree.
If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.

I'll start. BackAgain 

2nd Amendment:

A heated discussion topic.









						U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
					

The original text of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.




					constitution.congress.gov


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...



What do you want to discuss? Self defense is a civil and human right, currently under attack by the left.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

Guns are bad umkay ?


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 27, 2022)

Humans can't exist without killing something thus the need for weapons.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 27, 2022)

1. Whatever law enforcement or a security agency can carry in their armory should be available for me to purchase as an individual. 

2. No taxes on my RIGHT to bear arms!!! If the government wants me to obtain a permit and training then its done on their dime. This is nothing more than a poll tax on my rights and if they can tax this they can tax our right to vote.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...


Why did you leave out lying? You can't have a civil discussion as long as you lie either.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 27, 2022)

Shall not be infringed


/Thread


----------



## 22lcidw (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...


Detailed teaching to people what self-defense is. When defending oneself the correct way to be taught or educated. What is a threat? It is easy to say something is not when it seems people are surrounding you or an individual is making a move towards you or your property that you are in. The couple on their porch with weapons a couple of years ago with people on the street and pavement is an example.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 27, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Humans can't exist without killing something thus the need for weapons.



It is a problem going back to day one on the planet.

Before there were guns there were swords before swords there were pikes before that there were knives before that rocks and clubs before that hands.

It is the people who are doing the killing not the weapons which are inanimate objects.


----------



## Votto (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...


Civil discussion?
Have you gone mad?


----------



## Votto (Jun 27, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Guns are bad umkay ?


Yes, guns bad, people good

Why just the other day I had some gun try to convince me to go shoot a bunch of people.


----------



## JGalt (Jun 27, 2022)

If the authors of the Second Amendment didn't intend that we should have modern-day military weapons, then the First Amendment only applies to hand-operated printing presses and town criers.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.

I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.

We license fishing, cars, trucks, boats, trailers, businesses, etc
Cars and trucks weren't even invented yet, so there is obviously nothing in the Constitution about cars and trucks.

I believe that the criminals will always be criminals and will never abide by new or old laws.

So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.

That said, how would we ever patrol private guns sales.
We can't, so quit trying.

Pandora's box is wide open, so nothing will ever really change, I just wish we could stop arguing about it.

Law Abiding Citizens aren't the problem.

That's a small start.
Feel free to discuss this and other current issues.
But be CIVIL.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Jun 27, 2022)

Hypocrisy..............gotta just sit back and LAUGH sometimes!!!


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> Why did you leave out lying? You can't have a civil discussion as long as you lie either.


What does this ^^^^^ mean?
Lying?  Who's lying?

I mean, are you miketx already calling me a liar in THIS thread?


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.


Well, good luck with this one.

Anyway, when it comes to the gun issue, on a macro level, the cat is out of the bag.  The horse is out of the barn.  The toothpaste is out of the tube.  There are nearly 400 million guns out there, and while many are owned by careful, responsible gun owners, many are owned by people who have them to commit crimes.  So, the saying "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is perfectly reasonable and legitimate.

So in a normal world, we would accept that and then look at areas of compromise like normal adults.  Unfortunately, it appears we no longer have that capacity.  As a predictable result, we can no longer address problems and are in decline.

I can understand the gun owners' fear about a "slippery slope" on gun laws, and they'll have to be convinced (above and beyond the voices in their world telling them not to listen) that the slippery slope is not in the cards.  How is that done?  I have no idea.

Seems to me that, like a marriage that is in deep trouble, we need to first learn how to communicate and listen before we can fix any of the larger problems facing us.  Not holding my breath on that.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 27, 2022)

For 200+ years the individual right to keep and bear arms was never once in question. Suddenly liberals think they understand the Constitution better than everyone who came before them? I think not.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Humans can't exist without killing something thus the need for weapons.


Humans can't exist without some with or seeking political political power needing to control others without or not seeking political power, thus the need for guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...




They already have a place for this, it's called the Clean Debate Zone....but good luck ...


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> What does this ^^^^^ mean?
> Lying?  Who's lying?
> 
> I mean, are you miketx already calling me a liar in THIS thread?




I think Mikey is talking about your hypocrisy, because YOU are the one always coercing and pissing off people into rants and telling you off.......and finds it highly amusing that YOU, of all people, are asking for civility!!!


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> What does this ^^^^^ mean?
> Lying?  Who's lying?
> 
> I mean, are you miketx already calling me a liar in THIS thread?


Simple, it means what it says.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> It is a problem going back to day one on the planet.
> 
> Before there were guns there were swords before swords there were pikes before that there were knives before that rocks and clubs before that hands.
> 
> It is the people who are doing the killing not the weapons which are inanimate objects.




First murder was done by Cain...it doesn't say how he did it, but I don't think it was with a metal weapon of any kind..


----------



## Independentthinker (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.
> 
> I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
> Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.
> ...


One thing you didn't take into account is that bad guys will get guns anyway. The left seem to have this fantasy that a bad guy goes to a store to buy a gun and doesn't pass the background check so he can't get a gun at the store. So, he just breaks into homes, cars, etc and gets a gun there. Somewhere in there I think you said criminals don't obey laws and yet you seem to think that if a criminal doesn't pass a background check to get a gun that somehow the game is over and he will obey the law and won't be able to get a gun. That's just not reality.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> What do you want to discuss? Self defense is a civil and human right, currently under attack by the left.


More than likely he wants to discuss why it's not wrong to kill babies.


----------



## JGalt (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.
> 
> I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
> Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.
> ...



There are no "loopholes" in background checks. Only the government's inability or unwillingness to enforce them. Case in point: How did Hunter Biden legally-purchase a revolver, even though he was addicted to a Schedule II substance, and lied on the Form 4473? By all rights, he should be in prison right now. Yet, the existing laws were not enforced.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.
> 
> I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
> Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.
> ...


We are not a homogenous society. We are of many different ethnic and racial groups. There are going to be people who believe they have been shafted. It is easier to be violent than to be civil in that scenario. However, to become civil by applying oneself in education and work even if mundane is worthwhile for peace.


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
> How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.



That's exactly right. Criminals don't go through the background checks.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> First murder was done by Cain...it doesn't say how he did it, but I don't think it was with a metal weapon of any kind..



Good reference!!!!

True. If someone is going to kill........they are going to use any and all tools at their disposal..........hands, rocks, tree limbs...............


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Mac1958 said:


> Well, good luck with this one.
> 
> Anyway, when it comes to the gun issue, on a macro level, the cat is out of the bag.  The horse is out of the barn.  The toothpaste is out of the tube.  There are nearly 400 million guns out there, and while many are owned by careful, responsible gun owners, many are owned by people who have them to commit crimes.  So, the saying "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is perfectly reasonable and legitimate.
> 
> ...


I agree that it is no longer possible to reach any consensus because there is rightfully ZERO trust.  

There can only be extremes.  And because we must have the tools to exercise a self-defense right, I mast fall on the extreme of no gun laws ever.  One side refuses to leave well enough alone so they deserve NOTHING.

I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.
> 
> I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
> Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.
> ...




Well...first, a background check violates the 5th Amendment against self incrimination...

To go beyond that, our current system is what we have.....it requires a Federal background check for any purchase at a gun store, or licensed dealer.....

The anti-gun fanatics want universal background checks.....for all sales including private sales of personal property and to relatives and close family members...

The reason they are pushing universal background checks has nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals..

Criminals steal their guns, hence, avoid any background check...

Criminals use straw buyers...people who can pass any background check because they have clean records.

The anti-gun fanatics understand this....so why push universal background checks?

1) they want gun registration.....to get gun registration they need the first step of uninversal background checks...so that when they fail, because criminals steal their guns or use straw buyers, they can then come back and demand gun registration.......

2) universal background checks increase the time, money and legal risk for normal gun owners..which the anti-gun fanatics believe will discourage normal people from wanting to get a gun because of the onerous process to get one...


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)




----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> For 200+ years the individual right to keep and bear arms was never once in question. Suddenly liberals think they understand the Constitution better than everyone who came before them? I think not.




It isn't that they think they understand the question better....they simply know that to implement their total control over the population, they have to get rid of guns....

See the Sullivan Laws in New York......


----------



## skews13 (Jun 27, 2022)

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 662883
> 
> 1. Whatever law enforcement or a security agency can carry in their armory should be available for me to purchase as an individual.
> 
> ...



Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.

The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also. 

A private entity, a bank, can force you to obtain insurance on your own home, while you hold a mortgage on it, as well as insurance on the mortgage payment itself.

Which sets a clear precedent than you can be taxed to exercise your gun rights, as well as insurance companies requiring, or even denying you homeowners, or auto and boat insurance, if you store in the home, or transport a gun in the vehicle. 

I’m interested to see how anyone thinks a court can force an insurance company to cover you, based on your gun rights.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Jun 27, 2022)

22lcidw said:


> We are not a homogenous society. We are of many different ethnic and racial groups. There are going to be people who believe they have been shafted. It is easier to be violent than to be civil in that scenario. However, to become civil by applying oneself in education and work even if mundane is worthwhile for peace.



Many of my teachers in high school preached this. It was also part of the info being taught in American history and Social Studies classes.  

Nobody thinks the same, not even in the same ethnic or racial groups.  All people are individuals, and you have to deal with that up to a point.  

*Here's something one of my teachers replied to a student that asked "How do you tell the difference between the low-lifes and the civilized"?   The teacher replied "Uncivilized people say it with violence, death, and destruction....whereas civilized people say it with words, facts, and knowledge".*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> View attachment 662890


Yep, said no gangster ever.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.
> 
> The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.
> 
> ...




Nope........already ruled on by the Supreme Court....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

*4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.*


*5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.
------

Page 319 U. S. 108

The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.
> 
> The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.
> 
> ...


Can you tax voting rights?

No?

End of Discussion.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.
> 
> The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.
> 
> ...




The democrats tried to use Poll Taxes to keep blacks from voting....the 14th Amendment also shot that crap down...


----------



## JGalt (Jun 27, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.
> 
> The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.
> 
> ...



Except for the fact that transportation, travel, public roads, and waterways aren't a guaranteed Constitutional right.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Except for the fact that transportation, travel, public roads, and waterways aren't a guaranteed Constitutional right.




And the tax isn't on movement, it is to care for and repair the roads...


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.
> 
> The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.
> 
> ...


Except that none of your examples are a civil right. You see why I mentioned lying. The left does it non stop.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I believe that the criminals will always be criminals and will never abide by new or old laws.





Independentthinker said:


> One thing you didn't take into account is that bad guys will get guns anyway.


I did take that into account.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I did take that into account.


Why is it none of the gun laws you want ever stop criminals from getting guns?


----------



## Votto (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.
> 
> I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
> Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.
> ...


Times certainly have changed.  Politicians today want to defund the police, close the prisons, and make crimes not crimes anymore.  Also, police are told to stand down during Left wing protests that turn violent in cities run by Left wing Mayors all over the US.  People then try to Rittenhouse themselves to protect themselves, after which they are branded by the media as a white supremacist as death threats are thrown your way in addition to the full arm of the law coming against them.   All of a sudden, arresting such people and putting them in jail for a very long time  becomes popular for some reason.

But I understand why people say that "times have changed"  It is an attempt to divorce ourselves of our past cuz it is all bad unless it was Marxism.  So what is our past in the US?  It is a country that had a revolution that was sparked by the British trying to seize all the gun ammo.  It is a country whose identity comes from a people whose freedom came from being able to fight off tyranny with guns, so now we are expected to purge that out of our psyche and pretend history never repeats itself cuz we have cell phones now.

Yea, doesn't work that way.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Rittenhouse should never have been brought to trial. It was clearly self defense as shown.


----------



## Flash (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
> How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.


I'm glad you asked that question so let me explain it to you even though I have explained it to you several times before.

There are three major things wrong with background checks, two of them Constitutional.

1.  Background checks do not work to prevent crime.  Past behavior is no guarantee of future behavior as we have seen in recent shooting where background checks were passed.

2.  It is an assumption of being considered guilty until proven innocent, which is against the backbone of American jurisprudence.

3.  It is having to get government permission for a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  The very (and only) one that says that right cannot be infringed.  If you have to get government permission for a right that is in the Bill of Rights then the Bill of Rights really isn't a Bill of Rights, is it?


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> Why is it none of the gun laws you want ever stop criminals from getting guns?


Here's what I'm saying.
I get it, criminals have guns and will always have guns.
American Citizens have guns and should be allowed to keep ALL their guns.
I've never said otherwise.

If the age of legally purchasing an AR-15 (the gun of major discourse) was raised to 21, IMO, the law abiding father or mother in the USA would still purchase one for his 18 year old child.  
I'm willing to guess that many law abiding parents have purchased an AR-15 for their under 18 year old child.  It's gonna happen anyway.  
And I'm fine with that.
Take instruction (which I know most already do).


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 27, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Humans can't exist without killing something thus the need for weapons.


Nature cannot exist without killing something.


----------



## JGalt (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Here's what I'm saying.
> I get it, criminals have guns and will always have guns.
> American Citizens have guns and should be allowed to keep ALL their guns.
> I've never said otherwise.
> ...



Ok then. So what's the beef?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> Nature cannot exist without killing something.




Even plants kill.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 27, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> Nature cannot exist without killing something.


The entire cycle is one of life feeding off of death.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Here's what I'm saying.
> I get it, criminals have guns and will always have guns.
> American Citizens have guns and should be allowed to keep ALL their guns.
> I've never said otherwise.
> ...


But you didn't answer the question. Why do the laws never stop criminals from getting guns?


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Flash said:


> I'm glad you asked that question so let me explain it to you even though I have explained it to you several times before.
> 
> There are three major things wrong with background checks, two of them Constitutional.
> 
> ...


Fair Enough.
Thanks for the response.

In traffic, speed limits reduce accidents.
Without speed limits, most people would drive safely anyway.
With Speed limits, some people still drive at unsafe speeds.
But speed limits do reduce accidents, of course NOT ALL accidents, but it does help.

Can you agree on that ^^^^^ without saying "Well that has nothing to do with guns."


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> But you didn't answer the question. Why do the laws never stop criminals from getting guns?




 

OOOOOOH, oooooooh..........pick me, pick me.......!!!!

Ahem.......would it be because the democrat party/leftists, don't care about criminals getting guns....and that their only focus is making it harder/impossible for normal citizens to own and carry guns?


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.
> 
> I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
> Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.
> ...


Muzzleloaders were the most modern weapon of that time.  As one person already noted, we don't limit the freedom of the press to just single-page printing presses, do we?

Shall we then start requiring a license to vote?  More harm, in My opinion, comes from uninformed voters than all the guns ever fired.

Criminals will never go through a background check, so loopholes or not, you are making law-abiding citizens justify the exercise of a natural right.  The government exists to protect those rights, not hand them out or take them away.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> It isn't that they think they understand the question better....they simply know that to implement their total control over the population, they have to get rid of guns....
> 
> See the Sullivan Laws in New York......


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Here's what I'm saying.
> I get it, criminals have guns and will always have guns.
> American Citizens have guns and should be allowed to keep ALL their guns.
> I've never said otherwise.
> ...



Buying a gun for someone who isn't old enough to own it is already illegal.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Ok then. So what's the beef?


My beef is that as a Nation, we hate each other more each and every day, due to issues.
I wish that would change.

I apologize for my past name calling and attacks.
I'm part of the problem.

I wish to be better.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Fair Enough.
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> In traffic, speed limits reduce accidents.
> ...




Your analogy is wrong...

The proper analogy is...

Some people will speed, no matter the law...therefore, we have to ban and confiscate cars.

(Then you can say, that someone who isn't a speeder will become a speeder if you let them drive a car...the typical response of anti-gun fanatics who argue that a criminal used to be a law abiding citizen until he used his gun for a crime......)

That is a more accurate depiction of what the democrats want.


----------



## Flash (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Fair Enough.
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> In traffic, speed limits reduce accidents.
> ...


Being able to drive on public road is a privileged granted to you by the state, that built the roads.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  The one that says it shall not be infringed.

Big difference.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> My beef is that as a Nation, we hate each other more each and every day, due to issues.
> I wish that would change.
> 
> I apologize for my past name calling and attacks.
> ...




No.........if you look, honestly, at the problem....the left is the one driving the hate and violence...it is not "both sides." 

We didn't hate anyone........but the left keeps calling us evil things.......and attacking us, using the government as their tool more and more...


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Fair Enough.
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> In traffic, speed limits reduce accidents.
> ...


I can say that driving is not a natural right.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I support the 2A 100%, _*but.*_.....



Qualifying your alleged "support" with various and sundry logical fallacies means that  you don't really support the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Ahem.......would it be because the democrat party/leftists, don't care about criminals getting guns....and that their only focus is making it harder/impossible for normal citizens to own and carry guns?


I respectfully disagree.
All law abiding citizens CARE about criminals getting guns.

Maybe the focus should be
"How to take away guns from Violent Criminals" not "Law Abiding Citizens"

Are you ok with infringing on the right to bear arms from violent convicted criminals.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> All law abiding citizens CARE about criminals getting guns.
> 
> Maybe the focus should be
> ...



And again....from the Post by Miketx

*But you didn't answer the question. Why do the laws never stop criminals from getting guns?*


I answered his question.

Yes....we have 20,000 laws on the books that do this...including laws that let us lock them up when they use guns for rape, robbery, murder...and laws that state that criminals can't buy, own or carry guns...


----------



## Votto (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Here's what I'm saying.
> I get it, criminals have guns and will always have guns.
> American Citizens have guns and should be allowed to keep ALL their guns.
> I've never said otherwise.
> ...


You can take an AR 15, or any other gun for that matter, away from 18 year olds the very day that the government gives up their right to draft them and go kill for them at 18 to protect their gun hating arses from the evils in the world.

Not interested? 

Yea, didn't think so.

Now go away.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 27, 2022)

Try the clean debate zone.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> All law abiding citizens CARE about criminals getting guns.
> 
> Maybe the focus should be
> ...


Criminals don't follow the law by definition.....You think that they're going to start because you foolishly think that you can keep guns away from them trying to use the law?


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The proper analogy is...
> 
> Some people will speed, no matter the law...therefore, we have to ban and confiscate cars.


Who, besides a few crazies, wants to ban guns?  Seriously.

Give me some names of Law Abiding Citizens that have specifically said to BAN ALL GUNS.
Maybe they mentioned some specific guns, (AR-15) but who is advocating the confiscating of ALL guns?

That (banning and confiscating all guns) will never happen nor should it happen.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

whitehall said:


> Try the clean debate zone.


Does it matter to you which TOPIC this thread is located?
You have access to ALL of them, and they all pop up on the "What's New" tab.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> All law abiding citizens CARE about criminals getting guns.
> 
> Maybe the focus should be
> ...


After the application of "Due Process".  It is the ONLY legitimate means by the government to restrict the rights of individuals.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Votto said:


> You can take an AR 15, or any other gun for that matter, away from 18 year olds the very day that the government gives up their right to draft them and go kill for them at 18 to protect their gun hating arses from the evils in the world.
> 
> Not interested?
> 
> ...




And no abortions till they are 18 too.......if they can't use an AR-15, at 18  to kill someone trying to harm them or their family...they can't kill a baby till they are 21.


----------



## iceberg (Jun 27, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Humans can't exist without killing something thus the need for weapons.


And some can't exist without being an ass at every opportunity.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Who, besides a few crazies, wants to ban guns?  Seriously.
> 
> Give me some names of Law Abiding Citizens that have specifically said to BAN ALL GUNS.
> Maybe they mentioned some specific guns, (AR-15) but who is advocating the confiscating of ALL guns?
> ...




The democrat party.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Oddball said:


> Criminals don't follow the law by definition.....You think that they're going to start because you foolishly think that you can keep guns away from them trying to use the law?


Wouldn't it be a GREAT thing IF we could take guns away from criminals?
That would be good, right?
Should criminals lose their Right?
I know, they will get them anyway.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Who, besides a few crazies, wants to ban guns?  Seriously.
> 
> Give me some names of Law Abiding Citizens that have specifically said to BAN ALL GUNS.
> Maybe they mentioned some specific guns, (AR-15) but who is advocating the confiscating of ALL guns?
> ...


Tell the the full and complete list of 'sensible' gun control you folks want. Leave nothing out. Oh wait, you can't, because that list never ends.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Wouldn't it be a GREAT thing IF we could take guns away from criminals?
> That would be good, right?
> Should criminals lose their Right?
> I know, they will get them anyway.




Yes...actual criminals who have been arrested, afforded their legal Right to legal counsel and due process through our court system and convicted by a jury of their peers...lose their Right to own and carry a gun....


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The democrat party.


Too vague.

Who...... give me names.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The democrat party.


The lying about not wanting a ban and confiscation continues.  They do want it. It's a lie when they say otherwise, and they have no credibility.  We would be stupid to trust them with ANY new gun laws.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> Tell the the full and complete list of 'sensible' gun control you folks want. Leave nothing out. Oh wait, you can't, because that list never ends.




Thanks....this always ends well.....

How long will we wait for the answer......?  I am betting, till the sun goes dark....


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.
> 
> I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
> Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.
> ...





Gun cuntrol has never worked. People control does.  Background checks are fine, and if there was a law that made background checks free to anyone, granted immunity from lawsuits if the sellor used the service, and had no registration or reporting of the weapon being sold, most gun owners would have no problem supporting that law.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Too vague.
> 
> Who...... give me names.




obamas, clinton's, bidens, schumer, pelosi, the entire leadership of the democrat party....


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yes...actual criminals who have been arrested, afforded their legal Right to legal counsel and due process through our court system and convicted by a jury of their peers...lose their Right to own and carry a gun....


...while they are locked up.

If/when they are deemed safe to release, all rights should be restored.  We must assume that they will get guns one way or another when released.  We may as well let it happen or keep them locked up.


----------



## Zincwarrior (Jun 27, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> What do you want to discuss? Self defense is a civil and human right, currently under attack by the left.


How about we discussed the bill that was just passed?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

westwall said:


> Gun cuntrol has never worked. People control does.  Background checks are fine, and if there was a law that made background checks free to anyone, granted immunity from lawsuits if the sellor used the service, and had no registration or reporting of the weapon being sold, most gun owners would have no problem supporting that law.




That's why I ask them about a free phone app......that anyone can use to check the background of people...it could actually be used for more than just gun sales......

Free, easy to use, accessible to all, with no records kept...you plug in the name, date of birth, maybe a social security number.....it tells you if they are a convicted criminal, if they have been committed, or have warrants.....

Then you can make or decline the sale......


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Fair Enough.
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> In traffic, speed limits reduce accidents.
> ...


A good analogy would be that you can't take your car to the post office or a school. Not to court either.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yes...actual criminals who have been arrested, afforded their legal Right to legal counsel and due process through our court system and convicted by a jury of their peers...lose their Right to own and carry a gun....


Well, then let's enforce that law.
How do these convicted criminals end up with another weapon?  I know, illegally, right.
I'd really like to see the heavy 2A supporters, regardless of party, do a more effective job of enforcing (supporting) these laws and stop the repeat convicted criminal from ever owning a gun.

How?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Who, besides a few crazies, wants to ban guns?  Seriously.
> 
> Give me some names of Law Abiding Citizens that have specifically said to BAN ALL GUNS.
> Maybe they mentioned some specific guns, (AR-15) but who is advocating the confiscating of ALL guns?
> ...


File this under the radical homo activists, who proclaimed for decades that "we're not interested in children".

The kooks will eventually gain control and come after all firearms....As per normal, they'll claim that the failure of previous laws to stop the problem (which it will NEVER EVER do), is evidence that more draconian laws and/or confiscation is called for.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Zincwarrior said:


> How about we discussed the bill that was just passed?


A worthless bit of window dressing that will do nothing but be abused by authoritarians against the people.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> That's why I ask them about a free phone app......that anyone can use to check the background of people...it could actually be used for more than just gun sales......
> 
> Free, easy to use, accessible to all, with no records kept...you plug in the name, date of birth, maybe a social security number.....it tells you if they are a convicted criminal, if they have been committed, or have warrants.....
> 
> Then you can make or decline the sale......


Sorry, but no.

If I know you or not, we are friends or not, you would never get My SSAN number from Me.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Well, then let's enforce that law.
> How do these convicted criminals end up with another weapon?  I know, illegally, right.
> I'd really like to see the heavy 2A supporters, regardless of party, do a more effective job of enforcing (supporting) these laws and stop the repeat convicted criminal from ever owning a gun.
> 
> How?


Because they were released.  they shouldn't have been.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> A worthless bit of window dressing that will do nothing but be abused by authoritarians against the people.


... and is likely to be challenged as UnConstitutional.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We would be stupid to trust them with ANY new gun laws.


I agree 100%.

The focus should be on taking and KEEPING guns away from convicted criminals.
Laws that already exist.
But how?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Wouldn't it be a GREAT thing IF we could take guns away from criminals?
> That would be good, right?
> Should criminals lose their Right?
> I know, they will get them anyway.


"Wouldn't it be great...?" (i.e. Utopian thinking) isn't an argument.

Criminals gonna criminal, no matter what you think is great or not.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Oddball said:


> File this under the radical homo activists, who proclaimed for decades that "we're not interested in children".
> 
> The kooks will eventually gain control and come after all firearms....As per normal, they'll claim that the failure of previous laws to stop the problem (which it will NEVER EVER do), is evidence that more draconian laws and/or confiscation is called for.


Which is why we most repeal all gun laws or TEXIT.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> How?


Stop letting them out of prison.  

Ok, third time I asked, why don't gun laws stop criminals from getting guns? Surely a civil debate should include answers to legitimate questions.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Because they were released.  they shouldn't have been.


Again, I agree.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I agree 100%.
> 
> The focus should be on taking and KEEPING guns away from convicted criminals.
> Laws that already exist.
> But how?


Keep them locked up until thry can be trusted in society with guns.

You know they're going to get them. Why release them if you can't trust them?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Well, then let's enforce that law.
> How do these convicted criminals end up with another weapon?  I know, illegally, right.
> I'd really like to see the heavy 2A supporters, regardless of party, do a more effective job of enforcing (supporting) these laws and stop the repeat convicted criminal from ever owning a gun.
> 
> How?




We do...it is the democrat party that attacks the police and releases known, violent, repeat gun offenders........

How do we stop it?  Stop voting for democrats.


----------



## August West (Jun 27, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> What do you want to discuss? Self defense is a civil and human right, currently under attack by the left.


Yes, we need guns to protect ourselves from people with guns.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Oddball said:


> "Wouldn't it be great...? (i.e. Utopian thinking) isn't an argument.
> 
> Criminals gonna criminal, no matter what you think is great or not.


Then join the discussion.


miketx said:


> Stop letting them out of prison.
> 
> Ok, third time I asked, why don't gun laws stop criminals from getting guns? Surely a civil debate should include answers to legitimate questions.


Because judges let them out.
I'm guessing liberal judges.

*Hey, I gotta go out for a while.*
*I'm not dodging any questions.
So far so good.*
*Keep it going.*


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Why release them if you can't trust them?


That's what I say as well. If they can't be trusted when they get out, don't let them out.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

August West said:


> Yes, we need guns to protect ourselves from people with guns.


I agree, so why do you want to disarm the law abiding?


----------



## SavannahMann (Jun 27, 2022)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> /Thread



Ok. So you support allowing people who are out of Prison to get firearms?


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

So why don't gun laws stop criminals from getting guns?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I don't own any guns and cannot have a discussion on any particular components of such guns.
> 
> I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago.
> Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.
> ...


The problem is the unwillingness of far too many to consider firearm regulatory measures that don’t involve the regulation of specific types of weapons.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

August West said:


> Yes, we need guns to protect ourselves from people with guns.




Yep.

Bad guys use the tools that allow them to victimize people.....we need the same or better to stop them.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The problem is the unwillingness of far too many to consider firearm regulatory measures that don’t involve the regulation of specific types of weapons.




Yeah........be brave...name some.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Then join the discussion.
> 
> Because judges let them out.
> I'm guessing liberal judges.
> ...


Why do you keep dodging the question? Why don't gun laws stop criminals from getting guns?


----------



## August West (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> We do...it is the democrat party that attacks the police and releases known, violent, repeat gun offenders........
> 
> How do we stop it?  Stop voting for democrats.


It`s unlikely that the one who was released would have been locked up in the first place if he never had a gun. Do you think a vehicle has a second amendment right to have a gun overnight? Your law abiding friends gave guns to 625 criminals in Nashville during the first 5 months of this year and that`s only the ones reported. That`s only one (1) city. 
That was the Democrats we watched beating up 130 cops in the Capitol?  








						Police: At least 625 guns have been stolen from vehicles across Nashville this year
					

Law enforcement officials in Music City are once again pleading with residents to lock their vehicles. The Metro Nashville Police Department says 873 firearms have been reported stolen in 2022. At least 625 of those guns were taken from vehicles. Just last week, 21 guns were stolen out of cars...




					fox17.com


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

August West said:


> It`s unlikely that the one who was released would have been locked up in the first place if he never had a gun. Do you think a vehicle has a second amendment right to have a gun overnight? Your law abiding friends gave guns to 625 criminals in Nashville during the first 5 months of this year and that`s only the ones reported. That`s only one (1) city.
> That was the Democrats we watched beating up 130 cops in the Capitol?
> 
> 
> ...


Here we see another example about why we should not allow lying.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

August West said:


> Yes, we need guns to protect ourselves from people with guns.


A/K/A the government


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 27, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Guns are bad umkay ?


Blacks didn't think so when they fought long and hard to be afforded the right to use them to defend themselves.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> All law abiding citizens CARE about criminals getting guns.
> 
> Maybe the focus should be
> ...


If they’re a prohibited person, they have elected to forfeit that right.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 27, 2022)

Our right to bear arms has nothing to do with defending ourselves from bad guys, though that is a great side effect.
Our right to bear arms is specifically so that we can stop tyrannical government goons in their tracks. No matter how well they are armed.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The problem is the unwillingness of far too many to consider firearm regulatory measures that don’t involve the regulation of specific types of weapons.


No, the problem is that far too many people believe the government's infringement on natural rights is fair and reasonable.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The problem is the unwillingness of far too many to consider firearm regulatory measures that don’t involve the regulation of specific types of weapons.


Ban and confiscate.

We WILL get machine guns because you deserve NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If they’re a prohibited person, they have elected to forfeit that right.


And must assume they will ignore such a prohibition.  So, they can stay locked up until they prove to be trustworthy.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)




----------



## BackAgain (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...


I’m not sure what you’re starting. I see the TOPIC is the 2d Amendment. It is a topic that can generate a bit of heat.  

Recognizing that, let me ask you: what in particular is it that you wish to discuss on the topic?  I’ll start by guessing. 

Maybe you’re wondering whether I would care to share my views on the 2d Amendment?  Fine. I will start that process now:

I support the right of the people to possess arms. I do not believe that the prefatory words about the militia has anything to do with the right, now. It makes no sense to believe that a right to bear arms ( explicitly stated, albeit a pre-existing right of a free people ) which is meant to assure the people that the feared power of a central government cannot be wielded against them, would have to be contingent upon a militia the government controls. 

It’s purpose is not hunting. That’s just a benefit of the explicit right. It is not even home defense, though of course that’s part of it. It’s purpose was understood at the time. That’s why the Bill of Rights was necessary to obtain ratification from the people.  

One more thing at this early stage. Unlike some people, I am content with acknowledging some minimal qualifications in the right such as licensing and registration and related things like minimum age and no felony record. Just as the right to free speech is couched in absolute language, nevertheless we recognize some qualifications; so too I believe that the 2d Amendment allows for those minimal qualifiers.


----------



## iceberg (Jun 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The problem is the unwillingness of far too many to consider firearm regulatory measures that don’t involve the regulation of specific types of weapons.


Because most weapons targeted are fundamentally no different than any other gun.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> One more thing at this early stage. Unlike some people, I am content with acknowledging some minimal qualifications in the right such as licensing and registration and related things like minimum age and no felony record. Just as the right to free speech is couched in absolute language, nevertheless we recognize some qualifications; so too I believe that the 2d Amendment allows for those minimal qualifiers.


Would those who qualify have UNRESTRICTED access to all military weapons?


----------



## sartre play (Jun 27, 2022)

(With a few exceptions) ALL sides of our family have guns. most did or do hunt.
 Those that don't are happy to eat venison or dove dinners. Many have other interests that include guns.
 So up till a few years ago I would support guns totally. 
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO THINK TODAY.  The lack of gun education/ skill in use/, abuse of the right of ownership/safe handling & storage of guns. Why it became popular to walk are streets/eating places/ enter Walmart or any other place of business with a rifle slung over your arm. politicians pose with powerful rifles WHY unless they are running for the gun commission? PRO GUN ANTI GUN NUT.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

sartre play said:


> (With a few exceptions) ALL sides of our family have guns. most did or do hunt.
> Those that don't are happy to eat venison or dove dinners. Many have other interests that include guns.
> So up till a few years ago I would support guns totally.
> I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO THINK TODAY.  The lack of gun education/ skill in use/, abuse of the right of ownership/safe handling & storage of guns. Why it became popular to walk are streets/eating places/ enter Walmart or any other place of business with a rifle slung over your arm. politicians pose with powerful rifles WHY unless they are running for the gun commission? PRO GUN ANTI GUN NUT.


In exchange for mandatory high school gun training, we all get machine guns.

Deal?


----------



## BackAgain (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Would those who qualify have UNRESTRICTED access to all military weapons?


I think that *this* discussion is at too early a stage for that kind of rhetoric.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 27, 2022)

Votto said:


> Civil discussion?
> Have you gone mad?


Yeah, all of a sudden they're interested in being civil, right?

The dumb fucktard lefties rioted all summer, dragged an ex president through the mud at taxpayer expense, left 600 people in jail without due process while the Queen Witch was preparing her dog and pony show - threatened businesses and Supreme Court Justices -

And NOW they want to be civil?

I don't believe a word of it. Not a fucking word 

What I know is, I want these leftist scumbags GONE. Out of power. As far away from the reins of power and responsibility as humanly possible.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 27, 2022)

sartre play said:


> (With a few exceptions) ALL sides of our family have guns. most did or do hunt.
> Those that don't are happy to eat venison or dove dinners. Many have other interests that include guns.
> So up till a few years ago I would support guns totally.
> I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO THINK TODAY.  The lack of gun education/ skill in use/, abuse of the right of ownership/safe handling & storage of guns. Why it became popular to walk are streets/eating places/ enter Walmart or any other place of business with a rifle slung over your arm. politicians pose with powerful rifles WHY unless they are running for the gun commission? PRO GUN ANTI GUN NUT.


it is interesting that because of the fear of guns in the latter half of the last century and the first two decades of this century, that family don't teach proper gun handling.  

In the Founding era, it was expected that as young as as 5-year-olds were taught to handle knives and other tools we would consider to dangerous today.  By the time they were 10 or 12, they had been taught in the proper use, care, and maintenance of a gun and when it was appropriate to use that weapon.

Its interesting that the drive to eliminate guns in America for safety, is actually causing far more issues of safety and use than it ever had before.

As for you last sentence, those are more of incidents of people pushing back than a real desire to enter a supermarket armed.  After all, a rifle is a poor choice of weapon in close-quarter life and death situations.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

koshergrl said:


> Blacks didn't think so when they fought long and hard to be afforded the right to use them to defend themselves.


Against Democrat Kluxers


----------



## sartre play (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> In exchange for mandatory high school gun training, we all get machine guns.
> 
> Deal?


Where have all the hunters gone who passed down skill & safety? 
OK with me machine guns, The more ability to kill many people the more skill must be required ?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I think that *this* discussion is at too early a stage for that kind of rhetoric.


Why?

This further proves that this topic will only be discussed one way.


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I agree 100%.
> 
> The focus should be on taking and KEEPING guns away from convicted criminals.
> Laws that already exist.
> But how?



Start by having laws that actually punish crimes. Commit a crime with a gun? Automatic 10 years in prison, no parole. Commit a violent crime with a gun? 20 years, no parole. Murder someone with a gun? Life, no parole. And no option for leftist, pro-crime DAs and judges to overrule these sentences. If they do, guess what? They go to prison, too.


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Well, then let's enforce that law.
> How do these convicted criminals end up with another weapon?  I know, illegally, right.
> I'd really like to see the heavy 2A supporters, regardless of party, do a more effective job of enforcing (supporting) these laws and stop the repeat convicted criminal from ever owning a gun.
> 
> How?





Easy, other criminals provide them.  They stwal them.  Obtain them from criminal FFL holders, imagine that, gang bangers get an FFL so they can provide guns to their banger buddies.

And of course, failure by progressive, soros backed DA's to enforce the laws already on the books.


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> View attachment 662920



My M-4 is eleven ARs safer!


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

scruffy said:


> Yeah, all of a sudden they're interested in being civil, right?
> 
> The dumb fucktard lefties rioted all summer, dragged an ex president through the mud at taxpayer expense, left 600 people in jail without due process while the Queen Witch was preparing her dog and pony show - threatened businesses and Supreme Court Justices -
> 
> ...


Yup and they are right here in this thread lying and deflecting, like always.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 27, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Ok. So you support allowing people who are out of Prison to get firearms?



Depends on their crime


----------



## Lastamender (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...


You should have put this in Zone 1, dummy.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

sartre play said:


> Where have all the hunters gone who passed down skill & safety?
> OK with me machine guns, The more ability to kill many people the more skill must be required ?


Leftist butchers have no skill other than lying stealing cheating and killing.


----------



## BackAgain (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Why?
> 
> This further proves that this topic will only be discussed one way.


Why what?  Why not discuss a rather silly extreme point now instead of allowing the conversation to develop meaningfully?

I’m sure there’s a better place for you to engage in thread derailment. Don’t fret.


----------



## sartre play (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> Leftist butchers have no skill other than lying stealing cheating and killing.


This is not a reply to a post, its just a nasty negative.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

sartre play said:


> This is not a reply to a post, its just a nasty negative.


Truthful though. You guys prove it daily.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Then join the discussion.


What am I doing right now?

What law(s) will bring about your Utopian dream, without totalitarian kooks eventually coming for full confiscation?....Please show your math.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The problem is the unwillingness of far too many to consider firearm regulatory measures that don’t involve the regulation of specific types of weapons.


"Specific kinds of X" always (yes, ALWAYS) ends up being ALL of X....Which then ends up in total bans.

True historical fact, which you're obviously too pig-headed and/or plain old dishonest to face up to.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> Why do you keep dodging the question? Why don't gun laws stop criminals from getting guns?









Because the law can _*NEVER EVER*_ protect anyone from the actions of criminals!


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> Start by having laws that actually punish crimes. Commit a crime with a gun? Automatic 10 years in prison, no parole. Commit a violent crime with a gun? 20 years, no parole. Murder someone with a gun? Life, no parole. And no option for leftist, pro-crime DAs and judges to overrule these sentences. If they do, guess what? They go to prison, too.


I agree 100%
Except first offense needs to be more than 10 years.


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I agree 100%
> Except first offense needs to be more than 10 years.



Great. I hope you didn't vote for soft-on-crime leftists like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, because this will never happen with them or people like them in charge.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I agree 100%
> Except first offense needs to be more than 10 years.


Why do you keep refusing to answer the question I asked? Why don't gun laws stop criminals from getting guns?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> My M-4 is eleven ARs safer!
> 
> View attachment 662946


No, you got it wrong. The "M" designation is in reverse order. M4 is the 4th most dangerous/scary.  The higher the "M" value, the safer. 

Thus, an M60 is way safer than the M4.  
The M103 could be operated by pre-schoolers.  
And the M249 is the safest of all.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 27, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.
> 
> The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.
> 
> ...






I see no where in the Constitution that guarantees an individual the right to transportation or the right to lodging.

However it does guarantee me the right to bear arms and the right to vote.

Of course we could put a $1,000.00 or more charge on every time you want vote if that's how you feel a right granted in the Constitution should be treated.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> No, you got it wrong. The "M" designation is in reverse order. M4 is the 4th most dangerous/scary.  The higher the "M" value, the safer.
> 
> Thus, an M60 is way safer than the M4.
> The M103 could be operated by pre-schoolers.
> And the M249 is the safest of all.


So my m1 is like a nuke then? Dayyuuuum!


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...



Ok, I respectfully disagree, so fuck off.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Well here we can see why these lying leftists can't be seriously debated. I've asked the op 4 times why laws are ineffective and he refuses to answer. Clown world as always!


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 27, 2022)

Mac1958 said:


> Well, good luck with this one.
> 
> Anyway, when it comes to the gun issue, on a macro level, the cat is out of the bag.  The horse is out of the barn.  The toothpaste is out of the tube.  There are nearly 400 million guns out there, and while many are owned by careful, responsible gun owners, many are owned by people who have them to commit crimes.  So, the saying "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is perfectly reasonable and legitimate.
> 
> ...



*"I can understand the gun owners' fear about a "slippery slope" on gun laws"*

You know, I've always looked at the abortion issue and guns in this manner.

The pro-abortion side has always been against any restrictions, fearing it would lead to an eventual complete ban. The proverbial 'give an inch, they'll take a mile' argument.
Likewise, the pro-Second Amendment side sees it the same way.

We now are beginning to see why these fears are founded.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> Great. I hope you didn't vote for soft-on-crime leftists like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, because this will never happen with them or people like them in charge.


I agree. 
But tough on crime hasn’t happened under any recent administration. 
It’s easy to blame Democrats 
But I see blame on All sides


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> Well here we can see why these lying leftists can't be seriously debated. I've asked the op 4 times why laws are ineffective and he refuses to answer. Clown world as always!


No insults
Try asking nicely
You started off calling me a liar

I told you I wasn’t dodging questions 
I said I would be out for a while. 
I’m in line at Subway
I’ll answer when I get back to the resort pool. 

Fair enough?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

August West said:


> It`s unlikely that the one who was released would have been locked up in the first place if he never had a gun. Do you think a vehicle has a second amendment right to have a gun overnight? Your law abiding friends gave guns to 625 criminals in Nashville during the first 5 months of this year and that`s only the ones reported. That`s only one (1) city.
> That was the Democrats we watched beating up 130 cops in the Capitol?
> 
> 
> ...



Oh……you blame the victim…..

You sure are right…..if that woman had not worn that short skirt and sexy top, and if she hadn’t led that guy/ guys on, she wouldn’t have been raped…….

Do you realize that if women simply stopped wearing short skirts and less revealing blouses we could stop rapes?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

August West said:


> It`s unlikely that the one who was released would have been locked up in the first place if he never had a gun. Do you think a vehicle has a second amendment right to have a gun overnight? Your law abiding friends gave guns to 625 criminals in Nashville during the first 5 months of this year and that`s only the ones reported. That`s only one (1) city.
> That was the Democrats we watched beating up 130 cops in the Capitol?
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmmm…perhaps the solution is to arrest, and jail the people who stole the guns?

Right now, the democrat party is dropping those charges, releasing those thieves on no cash bail, and giving them probation instead of the 10 years they deserve…..

how about before you blame the victim, you lock up the violent, repeat gun offender?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I agree.
> But tough on crime hasn’t happened under any recent administration.
> It’s easy to blame Democrats
> But I see blame on All sides



No….since 2015 the democrat party made attacking and defunding the police a prime goal of the party…..and their district attorneys and judges couldn’t release violent gun offenders….repeat, violent gun offenders fast enough……

It wasn’t the Republicans…this is all on the democrats


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I agree.
> But tough on crime hasn’t happened under any recent administration.
> It’s easy to blame Democrats
> But I see blame on All sides



Yes, but voting for the worst of the worst, which is what I suspect you did, puts us even farther away from where we need to be.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> No insults
> Try asking nicely
> You started off calling me a liar
> 
> ...


That's how you wanted to take it, but I am now. You still won't answer. You're just another deceitful leftist loser.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> No, you got it wrong. The "M" designation is in reverse order. M4 is the 4th most dangerous/scary.  The higher the "M" value, the safer.
> 
> Thus, an M60 is way safer than the M4.
> The M103 could be operated by pre-schoolers.
> And the M249 is the safest of all.


I'm partial to the safety of the M-2.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 27, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Humans can't exist without killing something thus the need for weapons.


What have you killed today?


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> What have you killed today?



His last two brain cells.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

DigitalDrifter said:


> *"I can understand the gun owners' fear about a "slippery slope" on gun laws"*
> 
> You know, I've always look at the abortion issue and guns in this manner.
> 
> ...


Same with the radical homo lobby.

LGBT wasn't enough....The had to expand to trans, and every other mentally deluded "sexuality"....They're now dead silent on the pedo creeps of NAMBLA wanting pedophilia to be declared a sexual orientation.

There's absolutely no end to any of them.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...


The right to bear arms needs no discussion.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

August West said:


> Yes, we need guns to protect ourselves from people with guns.


Especially so with the people with guns, who have a monopoly on, and virtually total immunity from the liabilities from, the proactive use of them.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> The right to bear arms needs no discussion.


He won't answer direct questions like always.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Jun 27, 2022)

skews13 said:


> Actually, they can tax your right to freedom of movement, if you use any form of transportation, that requires a public road or water way.
> 
> The state can force you to obtain insurance for that transportation also.
> 
> ...


Not surprised that you don't see how disingenuous this post is.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> Yes, but voting for the worst of the worst, which is what I suspect you did, puts us even farther away from where we need to be.


Yes I voted for the (D)
I know and understand, regardless of any policies, that trump is a crooked con man. 
He has been his entire life and there are 100’s if not 1,000’s of witnesses 
You just don’t want to admit trump is a con man

Biden has lied too, but nowhere (IMO) as trump

I just can’t vote for a vile cheat like trump. 
So I voted for Biden.


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Yes I voted for the (D)
> I know and understand, regardless of any policies, that trump is a crooked con man.
> He has been his entire life and there are 100’s if not 1,000’s of witnesses
> You just don’t want to admit trump is a con man
> ...



Like I said, all this is your fault.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> The right to bear arms needs no discussion.


Fair enough
It, the 2A, was written over 240 years ago, so some discussion could be prudent. 

There was discussion on Allowing women to vote.  Correct?


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> Why do you keep refusing to answer the question I asked? Why don't gun laws stop criminals from getting guns?


They can't acknowledge the failure of laws while pushing for even greater failures to come. Perhaps it's a cosmic limit to hypocrisy that even liberals can't breach.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> Like I said, all this is your fault.


Tell me the policies by past Presidents that keep gun using criminals in jail

Some of the gun using criminals release to the public were in Fact released by trump appointed Judges. 

Is this ^^^^^ correct or not.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Oddball said:


> I'm partial to the safety of the M-2.







Look

No high-capacity magazine.

Just get rid of that scary flash suppressor and open bolt, this would have passed 1994 AWB muster.  

It should be re-designated as M200


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> That's how you wanted to take it, but I am now. You still won't answer. You're just another deceitful leftist loser.


I’ll be happy to answer when you stop insulting.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Tell me the policies by past Presidents that keep gun using criminals in jail
> 
> Some of the gun using criminals release to the public were in Fact released by trump appointed Judges.
> 
> Is this ^^^^^ correct or not.


Why don't gun laws stop criminals from getting guns?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Oddball said:


> Same with the radical homo lobby.
> 
> LGBT wasn't enough....The had to expand to trans, and every other mentally deluded "sexuality"....They're now dead silent on the pedo creeps of NAMBLA wanting pedophilia to be declared a sexual orientation.
> 
> There's absolutely no end to any of them.


Because the real aim is to constantly have victims who need a champion and the only solution is communism.

Critical Theory is the bitch than never dies.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I’ll be happy to answer when you stop insulting.


You'll never give an honest or direct answer. I've asked at least 5 times all you do is spew crap.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I’ll be happy to answer when you stop insulting.


Taking away certain guns does not and has never worked.  Add to it, it's unconstitutional. 

The 2A is nothing more than a limit (ban) on Federal Authority.  

If we could all agree on that, we would be a lot closer to a consensus.  But the gun grabbing side FORCED us to battle them ALL THE WAY to the SCOTUS over the issue of the right being individual.

Now, why do you suppose they would do that?


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Fair enough
> It, the 2A, was written over 240 years ago, so some discussion could be prudent.
> 
> There was discussion on Allowing women to vote.  Correct?


Women did not have the right to vote.   Bearing arms is a right.  No discussion needed.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

A civil discussion should start with the gun grabbers admitting that their true aim is complete ban and confiscation. 

They forced us to battle them to the SCOTUS over the individual right -== _Heller _decision.  It was dirty and despicable, warranting ZERO trust from us.

Until such time as the gun grabbers FULLY ADMIT their ban and confiscation aim, there can be NO civil discussion.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Yes I voted for the (D)
> I know and understand, regardless of any policies, that trump is a crooked con man.
> He has been his entire life and there are 100’s if not 1,000’s of witnesses
> You just don’t want to admit trump is a con man
> ...


I thought this thread was about discussing the 2nd.   What happened?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Women did not have the right to vote.   Bearing arms is a right.  No discussion needed.


If he is advocating for an expansion of gun rights, like voting rights, then I am just like Obama--all ears.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Still no answer...


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> I thought this thread was about discussing the 2nd.   What happened?


This was the intent all along. These ghouls can't stop talking about trump.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Gun Grabbers must admit that they are trying to get a complete ban and confiscation before we can have any civil or meaningful discussion.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I’ll be happy to answer when you stop insulting.


lol

You don't get it.

You're going to get insulted whether you like it or not.

Anyone who voted for THIS administration is a stupid fucking asshole and DESERVES to be insulted.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> Why don't gun laws stop criminals from getting guns?


Currently we have weak laws that somehow go easy on criminals. 
We need to enforce the laws we already have. 
These laws have been in affect for many POTUS’s. 
Like marvin martian said. 
Tougher 
No negotiation 
Fair trial
If you commit a crime involving a gun, 
Any crime. 
Trial and conviction
10years
No parole 
No plea 

Either guilty or not

Build a prison 60 miles into the desert
Gun criminals go there

Staff has nice apartment on site
Work schedule of….
2 weeks on, 2 weeks off
12 hour shifts
12x14 = 168 hours in two weeks
2 weeks off
168 hours per 4 weeks
Average 42 hours per week.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Currently we have weak laws that somehow go easy on criminals.
> We need to enforce the laws we already have.
> These laws have been in affect for many POTUS’s.
> Like marvin martian said.
> ...


'Either guilty or not?'  WTF?


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Gun Grabbers must admit that they are trying to get a complete ban and confiscation before we can have any civil or meaningful discussion.


Ok, but I’m not one of those. 
There are very few people that want complete ban and confiscation. 


scruffy said:


> lol
> 
> You don't get it.
> 
> ...


Oh I get it scruffy. 
I feel the same about you voting for an established con man and habitual liar. 

Call Biden whatever you want, I don’t care and he better not run again. 
Call trump what he is. A lying con man.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> 'Either guilty or not?'  WTF?


Why is that perplexing you?
Fair trial, you know, due process. 

In trial you are either guilty or not 
Sentencing is understood before trial. 
No plea
No judge reducing time

Eithic trial finds you not guilty = no time
Trial finds you guilty = 10 years, no parole

Why does this confuse you?


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Currently we have weak laws that somehow go easy on criminals.
> We need to enforce the laws we already have.
> These laws have been in affect for many POTUS’s.
> Like marvin martian said.
> ...


Still no answer, just babbling bullshit.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Why is that perplexing you?
> Fair trial, you know, due process.
> 
> In trial you are either guilty or not
> ...


Because you listed all the punishments then wrote 'guilty or not.'   So, if one uses a gun, is found innocent of wrong doing, they get punished 'guilty or not?'  Didn't make sense to me.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Ok, but I’m not one of those.
> There are very few people that want complete ban and confiscation.
> 
> Oh I get it scruffy



No, you don't.




Winco said:


> I feel the same about you voting for an established con man and habitual liar.



Except I'm not a Trumpster.

You still don't get it 




Winco said:


> Call Biden whatever you want, I don’t care and he better not run again.



That's up to you. Me, I don't care what the name is next to the (D), as long as this leadership is in place they're ALL on my shit list and I ain't voting for a fucking one of them. I want them GONE. They're a menace.




Winco said:


> Call trump what he is. A lying con man.



Hey - YOU are the one who brought these scumbag Democrats to the table.

YOU. Personally. If you voted for these assholes, you're responsible.

Your pathological hatred of someone who's barely a minor crook BROUGHT THESE TERRORIST DEMOCRATS TO POWER.

And now we can all see where these fucktards are coming from, and no one wants any part of it. The Democrats have alienated even traditionally Democratic black families in low income neighborhoods. NO ONE wants what you're selling


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Why is that perplexing you?
> Fair trial, you know, due process.
> 
> In trial you are either guilty or not
> ...



You're talking a good game, but you vote for politicians who are soft on crime, and enable leftist DAs and judges who release murderers and give slaps on the wrist to terrorists. Walk the talk.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> There are very few people that want complete ban and confiscation


There are very few gun grabbers who will *admit* they want a complete ban and confiscation (buy-back lies also count as confiscation, so you can save it).

But we know they're fucking liars.

The _Heller_ decision even being necessary is more than enough evidence that a majority of gun-grabbing motherfuckers want a complete ban.

There will be no discussion any further on this in a civil manner until that is admitted.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 27, 2022)

It is my inviolable natural right to defend myself, my family, and my property.

By any means necessary.

End of story.


----------



## hjmick (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...




You don't get to dictate my responses or my behavior. Not even my wife gets to do that.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

Does Cloward / Piven have forced Diversity ( The Browning of America via Open Borders ) as a Primary part ?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

If America was drawn into another war would we be on the side of ( Iran ) or ( Israel )


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Still didn't answer, did the filth?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.
> ...


CDZ escapes you?

Typical dumbass!


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> You're talking a good game, but you vote for politicians who are soft on crime, and enable leftist DAs and judges who release murderers and give slaps on the wrist to terrorists. Walk the talk.


The judges letting people out are trump appointed judges also.
It's easy just to blame the other side.
Did we see a complete stop to releasing criminals under trump?
The answer is clearly NO, No we didn't.
So Why are you blaming Biden and (D)?

I agree we need to abide by the current laws but actually enforce the sentencing.
What am I saying wrong marvin martian 
I'm agreeing with you, yet you still attack me.

I didn't vote for trump, is that it?
trump was no tougher on crime, was he? Proof.


miketx said:


> Still didn't answer, did the filth?


Why do you continue to repeat this ^^^^^
I have answered, you don't like the answer.

One more try miketx or butchyboy.
Ask me a direct question, and I'll answer the best I can.
Earlier, the pool in Vegas was requiring my time.
Now you got me.........GO.
You get ONE Shot at your question, phrase it correctly.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

hjmick said:


> You don't get to dictate my responses or my behavior. Not even my wife gets to do that.


Not in this thread.
I just asked you to stay OUT if you can't be Civil.
Go play in a different thread.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> The judges letting people out are trump appointed judges also.
> It's easy just to blame the other side.
> Did we see a complete stop to releasing criminals under trump?
> The answer is clearly NO, No we didn't.
> ...


you're a liar.


----------



## Death Angel (Jun 27, 2022)

JGalt said:


> If the authors of the Second Amendment didn't intend that we should have modern-day military weapons, then the First Amendment only applies to hand-operated printing presses and town criers.


No internet for Democrat voters


----------



## JGalt (Jun 27, 2022)

Death Angel said:


> No internet for Democrat voters



Repeal the First Amendment!!!!


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> you're a liar.


What am I lying about now?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> CDZ escapes you?
> 
> Typical dumbass!


I see Paid Web Warriors who are as EDP as they can be ...


----------



## Death Angel (Jun 27, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Repeal the First Amendment!!!!


Should be greatly restricted anyway. How can we trust any leftist with an opinion?


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> What am I lying about now?


Lol, leftist babble always the same, pretend not to know what's being talked about.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> I thought this thread was about discussing the 2nd.   What happened?


Hey Leo, the thread topic is.......
CIVIL discussion on Current Issues. If you can't stay CIVIL, then please just stay out of this thread.​
The 2A was just the first topic of discussing.
I'm sure we could discuss the following also........

Grooming 
LGBQT
Public Schools
Police 

This is wide open, just discuss and state your topic.
If you'd like to discuss a different topic, just say so.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> you're a liar.





Winco said:


> What am I lying about now?





miketx said:


> Lol, leftist babble always the same, pretend not to know what's being talked about.


Be specific, what was the lie.
Why are you saying...."You're a liar."


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Be specific, what was the lie.
> Why are you saying...."You're a liar."


Classic leftist time waste babble, always the same.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Hey Leo, the thread topic is.......
> CIVIL discussion on Current Issues. If you can't stay CIVIL, then please just stay out of this thread.​
> The 2A was just the first topic of discussing.
> I'm sure we could discuss the following also........
> ...


Children don't need to be taught about LGBTQ and groomed in public schools.  There, I addressed 3.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> Classic leftist time waste babble, always the same.


I'm troubled by your confusion.


Was I lying about the Pool?
Was I lying when I said I support Law Abiding Citizens the absolute right to bear arms?
Was I lying when I called trump a Con Man?


----------



## BackAgain (Jun 27, 2022)

Slightly off topic:

Winco has tried to start a thread with a ground rule to make the thread work.  I was a bit suspect, since he and I have absolutely crossed swords. However, so far, the portion of the thread I’ve read so far yields a conclusion that Winco is trying pretty hard to honor his word. 

So, fair is fair. I feel forever free to call bullshit on bullshitters. I feel similarly free to give some props where they are due. And I am giving props right here and now to Winco. It’s easy to say “let’s make this a real honest and adult discussion.”  It’s not so easy to stick to it in the heat of a verbal battle.

At least for now, I’m tipping my imaginary hat to Winco for walking the walk.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I'm troubled by your confusion.
> 
> 
> Was I lying about the Pool?
> ...


Well that 'con man' brought us cheap gas and a great economy as well as an effective vaccine in record time.   Meanwhile the current con man has us paying through the nose for fuel, goods, food and has the highest inflation rate in decades as well as the highest Covid death counts.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Not in this thread.
> I just asked you to stay OUT if you can't be Civil.
> Go play in a different thread.


lol

Ain't that just like a dumbass leftard 

Refuses to play by the agreed upon rules

Thinks HIS rules are better 

These lefties can't be trusted. Who knows what rules they're going to play by today.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I'm troubled by your confusion.
> 
> 
> Was I lying about the Pool?
> ...


   

Classic leftist babble speak. Geared to waste time, spin and  smoke! You must have graduated from from hate America U with honors!


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Just for a recap,  here's what these vile filth do daily:

Leftist rules of engagement


1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth they are objecting to. 

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies. Smoke spin deflect

3. Ignore any facts presented.

3a. Play dumb to keep others wasting their time trying to enlighten you.

4. Ridicule spelling and typos, punctuation.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence, Age

6. Employ misdirection,

6a. smear people

6b. attack religion 

6c. attack your rationality.

7. Lie, make false assumptions

8. Play race/gender card/misogynist card

9. Play gay/lesbian card

10. Play the Nazi/Fascist/bigot card

11. Make up stuff/So you got nothing? 

12. Deny constantly

13. Reword and repeat

14. Pretending not to understand, playing ignorant/what did I lie about

15. When losing, resort to personal attacks.

16. Russia

17. Fox News/ Alex Jones/ Brietbart/ Infowars/ Stormfront/ Gateway/ Hannity/ Rush

18. You can’t read.

19. Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump!

20. Science denier! But men can menstruate and have babies.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> Just for a recap,  here's what these vile filth do daily:
> 
> Leftist rules of engagement
> 
> ...


Yeah. Pretty much. These leftards are kind of one trick ponies that way.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

scruffy said:


> Yeah. Pretty much. These leftards are kind of one trick ponies that way.


Thanks, one day I just sat back, looked and then wrote it all down.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

miketx said:


> Just for a recap,  here's what these vile filth do daily:
> 
> Leftist rules of engagement
> 
> ...


None of this ^^^^^ was happening in this thread until you interjected.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

Answer the question liar.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> None of this ^^^^^ was happening in this thread until you interjected.


You've refused to answer both his and my questions, even though we both remained civil.


He's right, you're just hiding behind the "civility" facade, in order to be the everyday run-of-the-mill leftist douchebag that you are....And succeeding wildly at it.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Oddball said:


> What law(s) will bring about your Utopian dream, without totalitarian kooks eventually coming for full confiscation?


No New Laws, just enforce the ones we have and actually have Judges follow the law.
If you want a new law, it would be about sentencing convicted criminals to 10 or more years if their crime involved a gun.  I answered this in post 187.
You just don't like my answer.


Winco said:


> Currently we have weak laws that somehow go easy on criminals.
> We need to enforce the laws we already have.


See above.



Winco said:


> Currently we have weak laws that somehow go easy on criminals.
> We need to enforce the laws we already have.
> These laws have been in affect for many POTUS’s.
> Like @marvin martian said.
> ...





miketx said:


> Still didn't answer, did the filth?


Post 187.
Enforce the laws we already have and give stiffer penalties.

You don't agree with this ^^^^^^^


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I'll start. BackAgain


So, you have made this a call-out thread.  You claim you want this to be civil while indulging in a call-out.

How interesting.


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> Not in this thread.
> I just asked you to stay OUT if you can't be Civil.
> *Go play in a different thread.*





scruffy said:


> lol
> 
> Ain't that just like a dumbass leftard
> 
> ...


What rule did I break?
*Asking to play in a different thread.*  Did that insult or offend?



Winco said:


> This is an attempt to have at least one thread where discussion remains civil.
> No name calling or threats.
> Just say I respectfully disagree.
> *If you can't do that, then just stick with the other threads.*


----------



## Winco (Jun 27, 2022)

Dogmaphobe said:


> So, you have made this a call-out thread.  You claim you want this to be civil while indulging in a call-out.
> 
> How interesting.


I tagged BackAgain because we had a discussion in a different thread.
It was an invite to join the thread.


----------



## BackAgain (Jun 27, 2022)

Winco said:


> I tagged BackAgain because we had a discussion in a different thread.
> It was an invite to join the thread.


I can confirm that.  I viewed it as an invite. I don’t agree with Winco on some of the things even implied in his invitation. But I responded accordingly. And I took him at his word that this was going to be an attempt to have a civil discussion. I have also taken note of the fact that (possibly with an exception?) he has been pretty true to his word. 

I propose that we *don’t* view this as a call out thread. I think of it more as an experiment. Let’s see how far we can move the discussion down the road while making efforts to remain civil. 

I’ve had some conversations with some moderators (one most recently) who have privately called me out over my (uhm) style. 😎

 Apparently, and I know this will shock some of you, I have a tendency (maybe a bit too often??)  to lash out at some trolls. It’s partly true. I really don’t feel the need to mind my manners or my tongue when replying to some misfits. 

This kind of experiment might serve me well. 

I would join with Winco in politely asking other members — on either “side” of the political spectrum — to engage accordingly.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 28, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I can confirm that.  I viewed it as an invite. I don’t agree with Winco on some of the things even implied in his invitation. But I responded accordingly. And I took him at his word that this was going to be an attempt to have a civil discussion. I have also taken note of the fact that (possibly with an exception?) he has been pretty true to his word.
> 
> I propose that we *don’t* view this as a call out thread. I think of it more as an experiment. Let’s see how far we can move the discussion down the road while making efforts to remain civil.
> 
> ...


No. Denied.

I'm not here to be polite to lefties or play by arbitrary leftie rules.

As a matter of fact, I'm here to make lefties look bad and expose every tiny little piece of their bullshit I can find.

Please refer to my previous posts in this thread for amplification


----------



## BackAgain (Jun 28, 2022)

scruffy said:


> No. Denied.
> 
> I'm not here to be polite to lefties or play by arbitrary leftie rules.
> 
> ...


I uh understand.

But nevertheless, I’m trying to give Winco the  benefit of the proverbial doubt. And so far, in fairness, I am happy to report that he has evidently been trying to live up to the commitment.

Hell, even *I’m* trying. What ya gonna do?


----------



## scruffy (Jun 28, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I uh understand.
> 
> But nevertheless, I’m trying to give Winco the  benefit of the proverbial doubt. And so far, in fairness, I am happy to report that he has evidently been trying to live up to the commitment.
> 
> Hell, even *I’m* trying. What ya gonna do?



I just won't believe it till I see it consistently for six months or more.

These are the same fuckers that just rioted for eight months, you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of their good intentions.

If you really want me to take notice, do it consistently in every thread for six months. Instead of putting on a Hollywood dog & pony show like Nancy Pelosi is doing.


----------



## August West (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Hmmmm…perhaps the solution is to arrest, and jail the people who stole the guns?
> 
> Right now, the democrat party is dropping those charges, releasing those thieves on no cash bail, and giving them probation instead of the 10 years they deserve…..
> 
> how about before you blame the victim, you lock up the violent, repeat gun offender?


We have 5% of the world`s population but 25% of the world`s incarcerated. Do you think locking more people up is the answer?


----------



## scruffy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> We have 5% of the world`s population but 25% of the world`s incarcerated. Do you think locking more people up is the answer?


Deflection. ^^^

Must be another goddamn leftie.

No dumbass, locking up the RIGHT people is the answer.

You don't go after soccer moms trying to protect their kids, that's just butt stupid in the first place.

And you don't let Molotov throwing communist terrorists go either, that's BEYOND butt stupid and you should get a red hot poker up your tarred and feathered ass for doing it, while you're riding the rail out of town.


----------



## August West (Jun 28, 2022)

scruffy said:


> Deflection. ^^^
> 
> Must be another goddamn leftie.
> 
> ...


Your insults don`t bother me one bit but it`s obvious that I hit a sore spot by speaking the truth. It`s The Guns that have ruined this country. Soccer moms and Molotov cocktails? What kind of bizarre drugs are you doing this morning?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> We have 5% of the world`s population but 25% of the world`s incarcerated. Do you think locking more people up is the answer?


Iran China ... Execute Criminals & Prisoners ( Death Penalty )and BTW China has more Moslems in Camps than America has prisoners & Jailed people in 46 States


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> We have 5% of the world`s population but 25% of the world`s incarcerated. Do you think locking more people up is the answer?




No....I think keeping the most violent and dangerous gun offenders llocked up will reduce gun and violent crime....

So you recommend releasing the most dangerous and violent criminals over an over again?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> Your insults don`t bother me one bit but it`s obvious that I hit a sore spot by speaking the truth. It`s The Guns that have ruined this country. Soccer moms and Molotov cocktails? What kind of bizarre drugs are you doing this morning?




No....as 27 years of experience shows...normal people who own guns don't use them for crime....criminals use guns for crime....and you don't want to lock them up for some strange reason...

Over  27 years,  from 1993  to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

*Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.*


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

*What changed in 2015?*

The democrat party did 3 things...

1) they began a war on the police that forced officers to stop pro active police work, allowing criminals to run wild.

2) they began to release the most violent and dangerous gun offenders over and over again, not matter how many times they had been arrested for gun crimes

3) they used their brown shirts, blm/antifa to burn, loot and murder for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods while the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and not stop them......in order to hurt Trump during the election.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> So you recommend releasing the most dangerous and violent criminals over an over again?




At least until the Stalinists complete their takeover of our country.

Once complete, they will start filling our prisons with political prisoners, instead.


----------



## August West (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....I think keeping the most violent and dangerous gun offenders llocked up will reduce gun and violent crime....
> 
> So you recommend releasing the most dangerous and violent criminals over an over again?


I recommend that we stop selling handguns and anyone caught outside their home with one gets locked up. Anyone who leaves a gun in a vehicle gets locked up too. Anyone caught trying to board a plane with a gun gets ten years. You and yours are the enablers.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> I recommend that we stop selling handguns and anyone caught outside their home with one gets locked up. Anyone who leaves a gun in a vehicle gets locked up too. Anyone caught trying to board a plane with a gun gets ten years. You and yours are the enablers.


----------



## Flash (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> We have 5% of the world`s population but 25% of the world`s incarcerated. Do you think locking more people up is the answer?


We a shitload of Negroes that commit crimes.  Are you suggesting that we don't lock them up and let them continue to commit the crimes?


----------



## Flash (Jun 28, 2022)

Winco said:


> Yes I voted for the (D)
> I know and understand, regardless of any policies, that trump is a crooked con man.
> He has been his entire life and there are 100’s if not 1,000’s of witnesses
> You just don’t want to admit trump is a con man
> ...


Trump was the first President that ever did what he promised to do and you stupid Moon Bats can't stand it because his agenda was to make America great again.  You moron want to make this country a Socialist shithole and can't stand trump because he had another agenda.

Biden is a corrupt lying piece of dumbass shit that never did anything right in his life.

Only an idiot would have voted for him.  Just look at how he has fucked up this country.  Morons like you are to blame because you have your head up your ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> I recommend that we stop selling handguns and anyone caught outside their home with one gets locked up. Anyone who leaves a gun in a vehicle gets locked up too. Anyone caught trying to board a plane with a gun gets ten years. You and yours are the enablers.




No......we want actual criminals locked up, and for some fucking stupid reason, your side keeps refusing to charge actual gun offenders, on video, shooting at each other in public streets, or your side drops the gun charges on felons caught with guns, and your side releases felons caught with guns on no cash bail, and you are reducing sentencing guidelines for felons caught with illegal guns...

Why the fuck are you guys doing that?

Why should a normal gun owner be punished to the full extend of laws they didn't actually break...while you and the other democrats are refusing to press charges against these guys?

*Officers responded to a house on the corner of West Potomac and North Mason. Two cars eventually pulled up and three people opened fire.*
*
No charges filed against suspects in deadly West Side SWAT standoff
The people inside returned fire – killing one of the gunmen and injuring several other people.  
*

*“We have videotape. We have officers on the scene observing it. At a bare minimum, the individuals who initiated the firefight must be prosecuted,” Lightfoot said. *
*
Police pursued charges but the state’s attorney’s office declined based on mutual combat. Lightfoot urged Foxx to reconsider.   

“We’ve gotta be able to explain to people on that block and across the city why it is when you have this kind of evidence, a videotape showing exactly what happened, why charges weren’t brought?” Lightfoot said. 

Aldermen are also questioning Foxx’s decision.  


Chicago police Supt. David Brown spoke about the case during Monday’s city council budget hearing.   
*
*“We should pursue the charges that we have and let jurors and judges adjudicate justice,” Brown added.*









						Lightfoot disappointed by Kim Foxx’s refusal to file charges in deadly West Side shootout
					

Aldermen are also questioning Foxx’s decision.




					wgntv.com


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> I recommend that we stop selling handguns and anyone caught outside their home with one gets locked up. Anyone who leaves a gun in a vehicle gets locked up too. Anyone caught trying to board a plane with a gun gets ten years. You and yours are the enablers.




Why do you want to punish the victims of criminals....while you and yours are doing this......?

*Washington state...



So why are Washington Democrats offering up a bill in the state legislature to lower the penalties for drive-by shootings?

Well, there’s woke and then there’s just plain stupid. Washington state Democrats are vying to become the best stupid they can be, bless ’em.*
*
Currently, Washington law holds that a drive-by shooter should get an aggravated enhancement if he is arrested and prosecuted—and that’s a big if. Such an enhancement could land a drive-by murderer a life prison sentence.
*
*But under a bill proposed for the upcoming Washington state legislature by white, woke ex-con state Rep. Tarra Simmons and her co-sponsor David Hackney, the reduction in penalties is a move toward “racial equity.” That’s right, drive-by shooting prosecutorial outcomes are racist. Never mind all the black and brown people who are the disproportionate victims of drive-by shootings.*

Washington State Democrats Want Decreased Penalties for Drive-By Shooters Because... Aw, You Guessed


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> I recommend that we stop selling handguns and anyone caught outside their home with one gets locked up. Anyone who leaves a gun in a vehicle gets locked up too. Anyone caught trying to board a plane with a gun gets ten years. You and yours are the enablers.




Why do you want to prosecute victims, when you and the democrats are doing this?

*New York...



The Mayor of New York City held a press conference yesterday that was full of fire and brimstone. The cover of the New York Post really says it all. “Mayor’s plea: We took 2,600 guns… But the shooters are back on the streets.” *
*
---

The Mayor is clearly frustrated and it’s reached the point where he feels compelled to point out the obvious.

**He said, “after the shooting, after the arrest, after being let go — You know what they do? They go do another shooting.” The NYPD is already aware of this because they keep arresting the same people over and over again. *
*
He pointed out that criminals in New York City “no longer believe you can’t do a shooting.” He continued, saying that criminals don’t take criminal justice seriously anymore.
*
*While the Mayor didn’t mention him by name, he was clearly making a reference to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The DA came into office promising to put fewer people behind bars and proceeded to make good on that threat. 

*

NYC Mayor: Our prosecutors are "a laughingstock" of the country


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> I recommend that we stop selling handguns and anyone caught outside their home with one gets locked up. Anyone who leaves a gun in a vehicle gets locked up too. Anyone caught trying to board a plane with a gun gets ten years. You and yours are the enablers.




Why do you want to prosecute the victims...when you and the democrats are doing this...

*California..

*

*Two days after the Uvalde shooting in Texas, the California State Senate passed a bill that would allow schools not to report threats or attacks against employees to law enforcement.*

*----*

According to the Bill, it would repeal the provision of existing law where it requires that “whenever any employee of a school district or county superintendent of schools is attacked, assaulted, or physically threatened by any pupil, the employee and any person under whose direction or supervision the employee is employed who has knowledge of the incident are required to promptly report the incident to specified law enforcement authorities.”

SB 1273 would then make such reports to law enforcement voluntary.

*
*



California Senate Passes Bill to Allow Schools Not to Report Threats to Police

=========


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> I recommend that we stop selling handguns and anyone caught outside their home with one gets locked up. Anyone who leaves a gun in a vehicle gets locked up too. Anyone caught trying to board a plane with a gun gets ten years. You and yours are the enablers.




Why do you want to prosecute the victims....but you and the democrats are releasing repeat gun offenders over and over again?

Philly....



*This year, though, we’ve jumped the shark. We’re on pace for over 600 murders—the most ever. An Inquirer story last week laid out some even more disturbing findings. Since Krasner took office, 

the number of gun crime arrests has nearly tripled, but the conviction rate for gun crimes has plunged from 63 percent in 2017 to 49 percent in 2019. 


In January, I reported that, under Krasner, homicides have jumped a whopping 58 percent; just 21 percent of shootings since 2015 led to criminal charges, and less than one-tenth of those resulted in convictions.*

*-----*



*The DA’s own data dashboard shows that, every year of his tenure, Krasner’s office has dismissed or withdrawn more violent cases and gun cases than the year before.*


* In fact, the average annual number of such cases that were dismissed or withdrawn has increased by 85 percent during Krasner’s tenure, compared with the four years before he took office. All of this despite the fact that the police are making more gun arrests than at any time since 2015.*



Larry Krasner is losing the battle against homicide. Will voters even care?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> I recommend that we stop selling handguns and anyone caught outside their home with one gets locked up. Anyone who leaves a gun in a vehicle gets locked up too. Anyone caught trying to board a plane with a gun gets ten years. You and yours are the enablers.




Why do you want to punish the victims...while you and the democrat party do this?

New york, 4/25/22



*We recently looked at the results of New York City Mayor Eric Adams bringing back the special gun crimes task force of the NYPD, though these days the various units deployed around the city have the much friendlier name of Neighborhood Safety Teams. The Mayor reported that in just the first few weeks of operation, the NSTs had taken dozens of guns off the streets and made more than two dozen arrests. The vast majority of them had one thing in common. The suspects generally had prior convictions or arrests for similar crimes. So that’s some great news, right? Getting more shooters and illegal guns off the street was the stated objective and if they keep up this good work the city should see some measurable improvements. 

There’s just one problem, however. Of those 25 suspects arrested on gun charges, how many of them do you think are still behind bars? If you guessed “one,” give yourself a cookie. All the rest of them have been sprung. (NY Post)*

*

Remember all of those gun charges the NYPD was finally bringing? Never mind*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> I recommend that we stop selling handguns and anyone caught outside their home with one gets locked up. Anyone who leaves a gun in a vehicle gets locked up too. Anyone caught trying to board a plane with a gun gets ten years. You and yours are the enablers.




Why do you want to punish the victims, when you and the democrats are doing this?

California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

*The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration. 

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.*

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.
------------
Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


*supplying a firearm to a gang member,*

l
*felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds*


----------



## toobfreak (Jun 28, 2022)

Winco said:


> I support the 2A 100%, but it was written over 240 years ago. Things have obviously changed since muzzleloaders.



The one thing that never changes and is perhaps a greater threat than ever is government usurping the free will of the people.  The 2A is there as a last resort for keeping a check on government, so you cannot equate it with mere fishing licenses.  The Founders intended that we maintain sufficient arms to maintain an independence from government, so if anything, we need access to more and bigger guns!


----------



## Care4all (Jun 28, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> What do you want to discuss? Self defense is a civil and human right, currently under attack by the left.


Where does the constitution say and spell out that you have a right to self defense?  

I think we do have the right of self defense, but I don't see it specifically written in the Constitution?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 28, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> The one thing that never changes and is perhaps a greater threat than ever is government usurping the free will of the people.  The 2A is there as a last resort for keeping a check on government, so you cannot equate it with mere fishing licenses.  The Founders intended that we maintain sufficient arms to maintain an independence from government, so if anything, we need access to more and bigger guns!
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 663308


The government didn't have a standing army to take over any state or groups of people....  A standing army giving the federal government power over us, was made unconstitutional in the constitution.

The state's Militia is who the federal government would need state governors to call up, if the federal government needed an army.

The 2nd amendment is about arming and regulating state Militia, so that as a Nation, we would have a collective self defense.

The people, men between 18 and 45 were in state Drafts, and had to be armed with their own weapon, under state law, to be ready to be called up for the State Militia, and ready for their governor, to send them out to defend our nation, if and when the federal govt needed them in our country's self defense.

Our govts had no money to buy guns, the people individually drafted, had to bring their own.


----------



## toobfreak (Jun 28, 2022)

Care4all said:


> A standing army giving the federal government power over us, was made unconstitutional in the constitution.


Tell it to Obumma who wanted to create a national police force under him made up of students in exchange for school loans.



Care4all said:


> The 2nd amendment is about arming and regulating state Militia


 Try again.


----------



## iceberg (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> What have you killed today?


I would say his own credibility, but did that by his 10th post in here.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

Care4all said:


> The government didn't have a standing army to take over any state or groups of people....  A standing army giving the federal government power over us, was made unconstitutional in the constitution.
> 
> The state's Militia is who the federal government would need state governors to call up, if the federal government needed an army.
> 
> ...




*The 2nd amendment is about arming and regulating state Militia,

No....nothing in our history, tradition or wording of that Amendment supports what you say.....nothing...not one little thing.....*


----------



## Care4all (Jun 28, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Tell it to Obumma who wanted to create a national police force under him made up of students in exchange for school loans.
> 
> 
> Try again.


You're nutty!  Did Obama arm this imaginary force, in your head?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> *The 2nd amendment is about arming and regulating state Militia,
> 
> No....nothing in our history, tradition or wording of that Amendment supports what you say.....nothing...not one little thing.....*


Not true.

Nothing supports your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> I recommend that we stop selling handguns and anyone caught outside their home with one gets locked up. Anyone who leaves a gun in a vehicle gets locked up too. Anyone caught trying to board a plane with a gun gets ten years. You and yours are the enablers.


Lol at the Communist pushin Communist stuff


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

Care4all said:


> Not true.
> 
> Nothing supports your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.




You mean except for the entire legal history of the United States....?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 28, 2022)

_


2aguy said:



You mean except for the entire legal history of the United States

Click to expand...

_
_
In 1791, under President George Washington, the “whiskey tax” was imposed on distilled spirits. Farmers in Western Pennsylvania resisted the tax, which they believed was counter to the principles of the American Revolution. The conflict culminated in a group of more than 500 armed men attacking the home of the tax inspector, which prompted a large-scale government response. Washington himself rode out to meet them with 13,000 militiamen sent by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

 Fortunately, the rebels disbanded and went home before Washington arrived and armed conflict was averted, but there was no missing the fact that the first federal use of the militia following the Revolutionary War was an attempt by the government to enforce a tax that many farmers felt was unjust. The militia during this period was very much an instrument of the state, and it was used as a means to violently enforce the law much more often than it was called upon for defense of the nation or the states.

During 1792, the formal role of the militia was further amended in response to the events of the Northwest Indian War. The Militia Acts of 1792 granted the president the authority to call up and command the militia (*the Constitution had previously reserved this power to Congress*). They also *conscripted every able-bodied white male citizen between 18 and 45 into local militia units, and further required them to own a musket, bayonet, belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box, 24 bullets and a knapsack. Requiring militia members to own weapons and ammunition was eminently practical, as it spared the government the enormous expense of arming them.* At this point, it was clear that the federal government wanted to be able to command the militia without assuming the responsibilities of organizing, training and supplying them. Meeting these responsibilities would be the burden of the individual states.



_


The whole article is informative!!!









						How the Second Amendment's Militia Became Part of Today’s Standing Army
					

The primary premise behind the writing of the Second Amendment is no longer valid and it should be reassessed.




					truthout.org


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

Care4all said:


> _In 1791, under President George Washington, the “whiskey tax” was imposed on distilled spirits. Farmers in Western Pennsylvania resisted the tax, which they believed was counter to the principles of the American Revolution. The conflict culminated in a group of more than 500 armed men attacking the home of the tax inspector, which prompted a large-scale government response. Washington himself rode out to meet them with 13,000 militiamen sent by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania._
> 
> _Fortunately, the rebels disbanded and went home before Washington arrived and armed conflict was averted, but there was no missing the fact that the first federal use of the militia following the Revolutionary War was an attempt by the government to enforce a tax that many farmers felt was unjust. The militia during this period was very much an instrument of the state, and it was used as a means to violently enforce the law much more often than it was called upon for defense of the nation or the states.
> 
> ...




Yeah.....thanks for the lesson on the Whiskey Rebellion.......

Now, go read the Heller decision where they actually go through the entire history of the 2nd Amendment.......you know, where it states....

...The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed......

You should read that part over and over again....

Let me help....

1. Operative Clause.



 a. “Right of the People.” 



The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

-----------

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

----

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

--------

Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

-----

But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “

---

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.



------

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

---

*(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.*

----

*(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.*

----

*(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.*



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----------



## toobfreak (Jun 28, 2022)

Care4all said:


> You're nutty!  Did Obama arm this imaginary force, in your head?



Typical ignorant, clueless, uninformed, arrogant leftwing tard.  So sure of 10,000 things you don't know the first thing about.  Thankfully, alert people stopped the madness.





__





						Obama, Soros plan nationalized US police force
					

Share The News!(by Rick Dalton) We have warned about the United Nations plan for a world police force.  CSPOA is…




					cspoa.org
				












						Obama’s National Police & Security Force Plan
					

On July 2, 2008 in Colorado Springs Obama talked about doubling the size of the Peace Corps, quadruple the size of AmeriCorps as well as increasing the size of the military at home. This statement…




					thepetroglyph.com


----------



## August West (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Why do you want to punish the victims, when you and the democrats are doing this?
> 
> California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register
> 
> ...


How are you being punished? Keep your guns in the home and forget the Wyatt Earp crap.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> How are you being punished? Keep your guns in the home and forget the Wyatt Earp crap.


Uh , in this time of Rising Illegal Immigration , Stratospheric Crime , Hatred of America and Class warfare and civil unrest , Legal Carry is a stabilizing force


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

August West said:


> How are you being punished? Keep your guns in the home and forget the Wyatt Earp crap.



So….. I guess people are not raped, robbed, murdered, beaten, stabbed outside their homes?  Good to know.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2022)

Winco said:


> So making background checks so they contain ZERO loopholes would not be an infringement.
> How is getting a background check infringing. You're a Law Abiding Citizen.


A police officer cannot, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, constitutionally stop you from walking down the street, detain, you, restrain you, and check for outstanding warrants.
Same applies to purchasing a gun and background checks.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 28, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Typical ignorant, clueless, uninformed, arrogant leftwing tard.  So sure of 10,000 things you don't know the first thing about.  Thankfully, alert people stopped the madness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Peace Corp and American Corp are Police Forces in right winger's heads, eh?  Are they armed?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah.....thanks for the lesson on the Whiskey Rebellion.......
> 
> Now, go read the Heller decision where they actually go through the entire history of the 2nd Amendment.......you know, where it states....
> 
> ...


"The people" in most of what the opinion writer stated, were limited at the time and later....  I had no right to vote, as example....I wasn't created equal, at the time...."The people" at the time, depended on mostly, who you were....an adult white male.

In the case of the second amendment, "the people" according to other laws, between 18 and 45 had to arm themselves with specific arms and ammo for when drafted in to the State Militia....the second is regarding the militia....its in the same sentence, and the only way it makes sense the way it was awkwardly written.

NO WHERE in the second amendment does it mention individual self defense.

That does not in any way mean we do not have the right of self defense, because we do....  But that is an unspoken or rather an unwritten, inalienable, constitutional right....

Much like the right to privacy and autonomy.....  It's a fundamental right that doesn't have to be written down....

Non-Exhaustive List of Fundamental Rights​Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include:


marriage
privacy
contraception
interstate travel.
procreation
custody of one's child(ren) 
voting


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2022)

Care4all said:


> NO WHERE in the second amendment does it mention individual self defense.


The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to use a firearm in self-defense.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to use a firearm in self-defense.


Ok.
Lets say you are right....even though not once does the 2nd, mention the individual's right to self-defense....

It's the same with abortion, and contraception, and sexual partners, and medical decisions etc that claim a right to Privacy,....which also, are not specifically mentioned in the constitution...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2022)

Care4all said:


> Ok.
> Lets say you are right....even though not once does the 2nd, mention the individual's right to self-defense....
> 
> It's the same with abortion, and contraception, and sexual partners, and medical decisions etc that claim a right to Privacy,....which also, are not specifically mentioned in the constitution...




No...it isn't....abortion ends the life of an innocent human.  There is no privacy Right to murder.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 29, 2022)

Care4all said:


> Ok.
> Lets say you are right....even though not once does the 2nd, mention the individual's right to self-defense....


As the right to kep and bear arms includes the right to use a firearm in self-defense, there must be a right to self-defense.


Care4all said:


> It's the same with abortion, and contraception, and sexual partners, and medical decisions etc that claim a right to Privacy...


_Non seq._
There's no necessary extention to what you said from what I said.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 29, 2022)

Care4all said:


> Where does the constitution say and spell out that you have a right to self defense?


Exhibit A

Rest and close.


----------

