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

[Leo123]

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

What have you killed today?

 

[marvin martian]

What have you killed today?

His last two brain cells.

 

[Oddball]

"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.

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.

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]

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

The right to bear arms needs no discussion.

 

[Oddball]

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]

The right to bear arms needs no discussion.

He won't answer direct questions like always.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

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.

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

 

[Winco]

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]

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.

Like I said, all this is your fault.

 

[Winco]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.