CDZ A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message

[kaz]

In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”

A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker

I can't tell whose side you are on.

So, tell me, do you love the NRA?

Or do you not?

The NRA is an amazing gun safety organization

 

[martybegan]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

 

[kaz]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

We can't have ANY limits on abortions, even against partial birth abortion because the RIGHT WON'T STOP! It's just a foot in the door to ban ALL abortions!

Guns? Let's just limit them, no one is trying to take them away ...

You don't believe that? Hmm ... me either ...

 

[320 Years of History]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

We can't have ANY limits on abortions, even against partial birth abortion because the RIGHT WON'T STOP! It's just a foot in the door to ban ALL abortions!

Guns? Let's just limit them, no one is trying to take them away ...

You don't believe that? Hmm ... me either ...

The gun debate has something the abortion debate does not: a Constitutional Amendment. If and when extant is a successful effort to amend the Constitution, I'll believe that someone (or group) aims to "take away" folks' guns. In the meantime, I'm of the mind that the only thing sought is removing guns from the hands of some folks who, with just cause, should not be permitted to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

 

[martybegan]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

We can't have ANY limits on abortions, even against partial birth abortion because the RIGHT WON'T STOP! It's just a foot in the door to ban ALL abortions!

Guns? Let's just limit them, no one is trying to take them away ...

You don't believe that? Hmm ... me either ...

The gun debate has something the abortion debate does not: a Constitutional Amendment. If and when extant is a successful effort to amend the Constitution, I'll believe that someone (or group) aims to "take away" folks' guns. In the meantime, I'm of the mind that the only thing sought is removing guns from the hands of some folks who, with just cause, should not be permitted to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

I have brought this up before, so i apologize for being repetitive. In NYC if I want to buy a handgun just to keep at my own home, I have to wait 3-6 months and pay around $1000 above and beyond the cost of the gun. I have to go down to police HQ, fill out mounds of paperwork, and then wait to see if they approve it.

Now please tell me what is the reason for this? What type of background check requires that much $$ and time?

I propose a more reasonable explanation. The goal of the law is to make it so hard to get a gun, that most people don't even bother. Recently an abortion law was struck down in Texas because according to the court's majority, its result was to make it more difficult to get an abortion, and that can't be done.

So why is the NYC law allowed to stand?

 

[kaz]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

We can't have ANY limits on abortions, even against partial birth abortion because the RIGHT WON'T STOP! It's just a foot in the door to ban ALL abortions!

Guns? Let's just limit them, no one is trying to take them away ...

You don't believe that? Hmm ... me either ...

The gun debate has something the abortion debate does not: a Constitutional Amendment. If and when extant is a successful effort to amend the Constitution, I'll believe that someone (or group) aims to "take away" folks' guns. In the meantime, I'm of the mind that the only thing sought is removing guns from the hands of some folks who, with just cause, should not be permitted to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

First of all, you realize that has zero to do with the point I made in that post, right?

As to your point, what does "just cause" mean? According to the Constitution, the term you are looking for is "due process." If you have been convicted of a crime with "due process," then your gun right can be Constitutionally limited. Other than that, not

 

[kaz]

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

The problem is that we simply don't trust you to stop at limited.

In all of the cases above except the painkiller one, there is no prior restraint. you have to do something bad before you can be punished for them.

And the idea of making it very very hard for people to get painkillers because some abuse them leads to people suffering for no reason other than the laziness of those out there trying to enforce the law.

Government has plenty of existing laws out there to combat gun crimes, and the ownership of guns by those who should not have them. I suggest they use those laws already existing before bringing up more laws, especially "shotgun" effect laws that attempt to solve a problem by punishing everyone, and not just those who want to break/actually break the law.

We can't have ANY limits on abortions, even against partial birth abortion because the RIGHT WON'T STOP! It's just a foot in the door to ban ALL abortions!

Guns? Let's just limit them, no one is trying to take them away ...

You don't believe that? Hmm ... me either ...

The gun debate has something the abortion debate does not: a Constitutional Amendment. If and when extant is a successful effort to amend the Constitution, I'll believe that someone (or group) aims to "take away" folks' guns. In the meantime, I'm of the mind that the only thing sought is removing guns from the hands of some folks who, with just cause, should not be permitted to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

I have brought this up before, so i apologize for being repetitive. In NYC if I want to buy a handgun just to keep at my own home, I have to wait 3-6 months and pay around $1000 above and beyond the cost of the gun. I have to go down to police HQ, fill out mounds of paperwork, and then wait to see if they approve it.

Now please tell me what is the reason for this? What type of background check requires that much $$ and time?

I propose a more reasonable explanation. The goal of the law is to make it so hard to get a gun, that most people don't even bother. Recently an abortion law was struck down in Texas because according to the court's majority, its result was to make it more difficult to get an abortion, and that can't be done.

So why is the NYC law allowed to stand?

Great point!

 

[320 Years of History]

First of all, you realize that has zero to do with the point I made in that post, right?

As to your point, what does "just cause" mean? According to the Constitution, the term you are looking for is "due process." If you have been convicted of a crime with "due process," then your gun right can be Constitutionally limited. Other than that, not

Red:
No. I see now that you were replying to someone who's on my ignore list, although of the three folks in that line of conversation, I only know which of them I'm not ignoring, which of the other two I am ignoring.

Having now viewed the entire line of discussion, what I see is that my remark to you is still applicable, be the allegorical concept of comparison drugs or abortion. So, again, no I don't see that the idea I presented as having nothing to do with your remarks or the theme of that line of discussion.

Blue:
Well, I happen to disagree with that. The "Pulse" shooter hadn't been convicted of a crime and he clearly had no business being able to get hold of any gun, much less the type of gun he used. Ditto the "Dallas" shooter. Ditto every other first time misuser of a firearm. In my mind, it doesn't matter if the person kills or harms one person or dozens.

You see, the thing about the right to bear arms is that there needs to be some sort of balance between folks having the freedom to exercise that right and the risk that a person who has exercised that right may "flip out" and abuse the arms they obtained in the exercise of that right. Now I know we can't accurately and preemptively identify each person who may "flip out," but we can identify the factors that militate for a "higher than X" probability that they may "flip out" and deny those folks the free exercise of their 2nd Amendment right.

 

[kaz]

First of all, you realize that has zero to do with the point I made in that post, right?

As to your point, what does "just cause" mean? According to the Constitution, the term you are looking for is "due process." If you have been convicted of a crime with "due process," then your gun right can be Constitutionally limited. Other than that, not

Red:
No. I see now that you were replying to someone who's on my ignore list, although of the three folks in that line of conversation, I only know which of them I'm not ignoring, which of the other two I am ignoring.

Having now viewed the entire line of discussion, what I see is that my remark to you is still applicable, be the allegorical concept of comparison drugs or abortion. So, again, no I don't see that the idea I presented as having nothing to do with your remarks or the theme of that line of discussion.

I'm just saying the specific point you responded to was how the left say zero compromise on abortion because you want to take all abortion rights away and any restrictions will lead to a complete ban on abortions, then with guns they say why can't you be reasonable? What you said was on the overall discussion, but missed that specific point. No biggie, but what I said stands, what you said had zero to do with the post.

Blue:
Well, I happen to disagree with that. The "Pulse" shooter hadn't been convicted of a crime and he clearly had no business being able to get hold of any gun, much less the type of gun he used. Ditto the "Dallas" shooter. Ditto every other first time misuser of a firearm. In my mind, it doesn't matter if the person kills or harms one person or dozens.

You see, the thing about the right to bear arms is that there needs to be some sort of balance between folks having the freedom to exercise that right and the risk that a person who has exercised that right may "flip out" and abuse the arms they obtained in the exercise of that right. Now I know we can't accurately and preemptively identify each person who may "flip out," but we can identify the factors that militate for a "higher than X" probability that they may "flip out" and deny those folks the free exercise of their 2nd Amendment right.

You disagree with the fifth amendment? That's fine, but your solution seems to be to just ignore it then. What about other Constitutional rights you do support? Can others say just they don't agree with your Constitutional rights and ignore them too?

 

[TNHarley]

Why would a "WEEK OF GUN VIOLENCE" change their position?
Maybe they are aware freedom isn't free?

 

[320 Years of History]

First of all, you realize that has zero to do with the point I made in that post, right?

As to your point, what does "just cause" mean? According to the Constitution, the term you are looking for is "due process." If you have been convicted of a crime with "due process," then your gun right can be Constitutionally limited. Other than that, not

Red:
No. I see now that you were replying to someone who's on my ignore list, although of the three folks in that line of conversation, I only know which of them I'm not ignoring, which of the other two I am ignoring.

Having now viewed the entire line of discussion, what I see is that my remark to you is still applicable, be the allegorical concept of comparison drugs or abortion. So, again, no I don't see that the idea I presented as having nothing to do with your remarks or the theme of that line of discussion.

I'm just saying the specific point you responded to was how the left say zero compromise on abortion because you want to take all abortion rights away and any restrictions will lead to a complete ban on abortions, then with guns they say why can't you be reasonable? What you said was on the overall discussion, but missed that specific point. No biggie, but what I said stands, what you said had zero to do with the post.

Blue:
Well, I happen to disagree with that. The "Pulse" shooter hadn't been convicted of a crime and he clearly had no business being able to get hold of any gun, much less the type of gun he used. Ditto the "Dallas" shooter. Ditto every other first time misuser of a firearm. In my mind, it doesn't matter if the person kills or harms one person or dozens.

You see, the thing about the right to bear arms is that there needs to be some sort of balance between folks having the freedom to exercise that right and the risk that a person who has exercised that right may "flip out" and abuse the arms they obtained in the exercise of that right. Now I know we can't accurately and preemptively identify each person who may "flip out," but we can identify the factors that militate for a "higher than X" probability that they may "flip out" and deny those folks the free exercise of their 2nd Amendment right.

You disagree with the fifth amendment? That's fine, but your solution seems to be to just ignore it then. What about other Constitutional rights you do support? Can others say just they don't agree with your Constitutional rights and ignore them too?

Purple:
Yes, I did ignore the "slippery slope" line of argumentation, for good reason.

Pink:
Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

There is nothing to disagree or agree with about the 5th Amendment. The amendment exists as do the rights it accords. The rights accorded are what they are. There is no attendant risk accruing from the State without reservation observing an individual's 5th Amendment rights as there is with the State doing the same re: the 2nd Amendment right. As I wrote before, what to do about folks exercising their 2nd Amendment right is a matter of balancing conflicting societal needs. And, yes, I think that balance is more important than is the Constitution, or anything it happens to identify as a right, for that balance must exist regardless of whether there is or is not a Constitution; the balance must exist in every society. That balance needs to be maintained 5th Amendment or no 5th Amendment.

I suspect you are "on about" the "deprived of...property" clause in the 5th. Well, neither you nor I are deprived of property we don't own when our ability to buy a gun is predicated upon our not being X% probably likely to "flip out" and misuse/mishandle that gun were we to acquire it. That is in contrast with the process by which law enforcement confiscates, say, a drug dealer's car before s/he has been convicted for dealing in illegal drugs. That depriving of the alleged dealer's property could be thought of a being in violation of their 5th Amendment rights. We also hold in jailed custody alleged law breakers prior to their trial date, thus depriving them of their liberty of movement, a freedom that strikes me as being far superior to the freedom to acquire a firearm.

 

[Fishlore]

I keep reading posts that say we already have lots and lots of gun laws and we don't need any more. The new gun laws that I have heard about are laws that loosen the restrictions on carrying guns openly or concealed in public places. I haven't heard about gun laws which restrict ownership. Are such laws now being passed?

 

[kaz]

First of all, you realize that has zero to do with the point I made in that post, right?

As to your point, what does "just cause" mean? According to the Constitution, the term you are looking for is "due process." If you have been convicted of a crime with "due process," then your gun right can be Constitutionally limited. Other than that, not

Red:
No. I see now that you were replying to someone who's on my ignore list, although of the three folks in that line of conversation, I only know which of them I'm not ignoring, which of the other two I am ignoring.

Having now viewed the entire line of discussion, what I see is that my remark to you is still applicable, be the allegorical concept of comparison drugs or abortion. So, again, no I don't see that the idea I presented as having nothing to do with your remarks or the theme of that line of discussion.

I'm just saying the specific point you responded to was how the left say zero compromise on abortion because you want to take all abortion rights away and any restrictions will lead to a complete ban on abortions, then with guns they say why can't you be reasonable? What you said was on the overall discussion, but missed that specific point. No biggie, but what I said stands, what you said had zero to do with the post.

Blue:
Well, I happen to disagree with that. The "Pulse" shooter hadn't been convicted of a crime and he clearly had no business being able to get hold of any gun, much less the type of gun he used. Ditto the "Dallas" shooter. Ditto every other first time misuser of a firearm. In my mind, it doesn't matter if the person kills or harms one person or dozens.

You see, the thing about the right to bear arms is that there needs to be some sort of balance between folks having the freedom to exercise that right and the risk that a person who has exercised that right may "flip out" and abuse the arms they obtained in the exercise of that right. Now I know we can't accurately and preemptively identify each person who may "flip out," but we can identify the factors that militate for a "higher than X" probability that they may "flip out" and deny those folks the free exercise of their 2nd Amendment right.

You disagree with the fifth amendment? That's fine, but your solution seems to be to just ignore it then. What about other Constitutional rights you do support? Can others say just they don't agree with your Constitutional rights and ignore them too?

Purple:
Yes, I did ignore the "slippery slope" line of argumentation, for good reason.

Geez, man. I wasn't making a "slippery slope" argument, I was pointing out ... oh forget it. Try reading it more carefully and see if you can see the point I was making. You've whiffed twice on the same post now.

Pink:
Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

There is nothing to disagree or agree with about the 5th Amendment.

Of course there is, you're advocating restricting Constitutional rights without due process of law. That's flagrantly unconstitutional.

The amendment exists as do the rights it accords. The rights accorded are what they are. There is no attendant risk accruing from the State without reservation observing an individual's 5th Amendment rights as there is with the State doing the same re: the 2nd Amendment right. As I wrote before, what to do about folks exercising their 2nd Amendment right is a matter of balancing conflicting societal needs. And, yes, I think that balance is more important than is the Constitution, or anything it happens to identify as a right, for that balance must exist regardless of whether there is or is not a Constitution; the balance must exist in every society. That balance needs to be maintained 5th Amendment or no 5th Amendment.

Gotcha, if government decides that in balancing societal needs they can just decide to deprive us of our Constitutional rights then that works for me. I'm convinced now. Isn't the right to remove our other rights for societal needs in the first amendment? That is important that government can do that. [/sarcasm]

Since you think government decides which rights to grant us, why did they bother having a Bill of Rights in the first place? Why didn't they call it a "Bill of Suggestions as long as they are consistent with Societal needs?

Sorry, I guess I wasn't done with the sarcasm yet ...

I suspect you are "on about" the "deprived of...property" clause in the 5th. Well, neither you nor I are deprived of property we don't own when our ability to buy a gun is predicated upon our not being X% probably likely to "flip out" and misuse/mishandle that gun were we to acquire it. That is in contrast with the process by which law enforcement confiscates, say, a drug dealer's car before s/he has been convicted for dealing in illegal drugs. That depriving of the alleged dealer's property could be thought of a being in violation of their 5th Amendment rights. We also hold in jailed custody alleged law breakers prior to their trial date, thus depriving them of their liberty of movement, a freedom that strikes me as being far superior to the freedom to acquire a firearm.

The government taking the property of people who haven't been convicted of a crime is a flagrant violation of due process and I say that repeatedly. The War on Drugs is a Constitutional abomination and anyone who supports what they do and thinks they are a "Constitutionalist" is a liar

 

[320 Years of History]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't done with the sarcasm yet ...

Well, I at least appreciate your indicating that your remarks were sarcastic in nature. That goes farther toward being clear than do a lot of folks. [not sarcastic]

 

[320 Years of History]

The government taking the property of people who haven't been convicted of a crime is a flagrant violation of due process and I say that repeatedly. The War on Drugs is a Constitutional abomination and anyone who supports what they do and thinks they are a "Constitutionalist" is a liar

I give you credit for being principly consistent, at least in the specific regard noted above. That too is more than I can say for most posters on here. It may well be that you and I just have differing principles. I don't know for sure if that's totally so or just somewhat so. Even so, adhering to a given principle at all its levels of scope is to be commended.

 

[kaz]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't done with the sarcasm yet ...

Well, I at least appreciate your indicating that your remarks were sarcastic in nature. That goes farther toward being clear than do a lot of folks. [not sarcastic]

My sarcasm was directly to your not getting the obvious point I was making and you whiffing on it. Multiple times

 

[kaz]

The government taking the property of people who haven't been convicted of a crime is a flagrant violation of due process and I say that repeatedly. The War on Drugs is a Constitutional abomination and anyone who supports what they do and thinks they are a "Constitutionalist" is a liar

I give you credit for being principly consistent, at least in the specific regard noted above. That too is more than I can say for most posters on here. It may well be that you and I just have differing principles. I don't know for sure if that's totally so or just somewhat so. Even so, adhering to a given principle at all its levels of scope is to be commended.

Thank you, but as for your qualification, "at least in the specific regard noted above," I challenge you to ever find me inconsistent on that

 

[2aguy]

In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”

A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker

And they are right.

 

[2aguy]

A document well worth reading for everyone who cares about the "gun debate:"

• From my Cold Dead Hands": the role of the NRA in the lack of gun reform in the United States from 1996-2014

The NRA is a civil Rights group fighting against a move to make the 2nd Amendment dissapear...without the NRA the ability to own and carry guns would have disappeared decades ago....

Please...since you linked the article....which "gun reform" do you think would actually fix the gun crime problem of our inner cities....where we already have strict gun control laws.....?

Just putting out there..."the NRA is against gun reform" is easy...actually putting out a specific idea, explaining how it would work and defending it would be helpful....

In the Abstract of you link it states...

Even when modest gun reform was attempted after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 it was not passed because of the ability of the NRA in achieving its single goal to prevent any restrictions on firearms ownership.

Do you even realize that nothing the anti gun activists proposed after Sandy Hook would have stopped the Sandy Hook murders? Do you realize that? So exactly what use is it for the anti gunners to pass legislation that does nothing...and then blame the NRA and we, their supporters for blocking measures that only effect law abiding gun owners?

Can you explain that?

Or would you prefer to just say the NRA are meanies, and move on....

 

[2aguy]

In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”

A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker

Wow, a week of showing how much danger we are in walking down the street didn't convince us that we should give up our protection? That's just stunning, isn't it?

You know, in my thread on how you propose we actually keep guns from criminals, you never did present an actual idea how we accomplish that. Have you come up with one?

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Unless you're a black gun owner or a cop, the past week didn't demonstrate any danger in walking down the street--not anymore than usual, anyway.

Which black gun owner....the one in Baton Rouge who was a felon carrying an illegal gun....or the guy in Minnesota who we still don't know if he actually had a carry permit for his gun..........?