Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When exactly was the NFA struck down as un-Constitutional.Well the real problem is the force multiplier factor of modern weapons. This was never contemplated in 1789.I'd just like to see enough done so that we could proceed to the REAL problem.I might be in favor of special licensing for semi auto rifles/carbines.If I were King (I'm working on it, but the RED TAPE is HORRENDOUS), this whole gun debate would be going in a very different direction.
Certain forces are keeping the debate about guns on regulation and banning and even confiscation, forcing gun supporters on the defensive. These forces are ignoring - and, I think, purposely - the real problem here, which is a sick and decaying culture that is spitting out more damaged psychopaths by the day.
If I had my way, the gun supporters would bend and allow for some basic (and perfectly reasonable) regulations on the availability of guns to certain people. The Left says (and I agree) that there is room for increased regulation on the margins that won't cramp the lives of law-abiding gun owners.
Why are these forces purposely ignoring the bigger problem, the real problem, of our culture? Because, obviously, they are profiting from the movies and music and television shows and video games and societal divisions that are creating the decay. No wonder they want to avoid that discussion. Seems to me that if gun supporters were smart, they'd give an inch or two and then go after the real problem loud and clear.
Doesn't seem all that complicated. But the gun supporters refuse to give an inch, and they don't see they're being played. The longer this issue remains where it is, the worse off they are.
.
But there would need to be an assurance that anyone qualifying would get the license. Sort of like a concealed firearms permit.
But naturally the NRA is not going to go for that.
.
The issue was already dealt with unconstitutionally for submachine guns in the 1930's.
And even before that, all sorts of unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership was imposed after the U.S. Civil War to prevent freed slaves from getting their hands on guns.
I'd just like to see enough done so that we could proceed to the REAL problem.
Let's try it this way:
Instead of spending this time and energy endlessly defending the 2nd Amendment, hashing over the same arguments, would you rather be discussing how our popular culture is creating animals who are more and more likely to use guns to slaughter innocent people?
And if your answer is "yes", why are we not hearing this argument anywhere?
Now that a couple of Regressive Leftists have joined the conversation, perhaps you'll see what I'm talking about.So is gun violence so prevalent that we are all unsafe and should therefore give up our guns? Or is it that we are so safe that we are just paranoid that we feel we may need to have a gun some day? Hmm. Yet another liberal dilemma.
The right wing has not been in political power since the 1980's. So, there is very little that the right wing has done to this country.
Now that a couple of Regressive Leftists have joined the conversation, perhaps you'll see what I'm talking about.
They want to keep your focus on arguing about the 2nd Amendment, as they pretend that our popular culture is not contributing to the violence. They don't want what they support to be part of the conversation. They want to keep you on the defensive, just as they do in other ways.
The OP did not ‘assault’ the Second Amendment.Let's try it this way:
Instead of spending this time and energy endlessly defending the 2nd Amendment, hashing over the same arguments, would you rather be discussing how our popular culture is creating animals who are more and more likely to use guns to slaughter innocent people?
And if your answer is "yes", why are we not hearing this argument anywhere?
.
If you don't want me to have to defend the 2nd Amendment ... Then stop assaulting it.
If you want the discussion to be about popular culture and not gun rights ... Then don't mention the 2nd Amendment nor gun rights.
That's not what you suggested though ... You suggested we yet again leave ourselves open to more abuse and erosion of our rights.
I simply said you have nothing to bargain with ... And there is no reason for us to expect good faith from the opposition.
If the argument is wearing you out and/or misdirected ... You have the ability to argue something else.
We are not going to discuss any desire for me to compromise my rights ... Outside of the fact you have nothing I want in return for any compromise you could offer.
.
Now that a couple of Regressive Leftists have joined the conversation, perhaps you'll see what I'm talking about.
They want to keep your focus on arguing about the 2nd Amendment, as they pretend that our popular culture is not contributing to the violence. They don't want what they support to be part of the conversation. They want to keep you on the defensive, just as they do in other ways. They want to make this SOLELY about guns.
The only question is whether you'll keep falling for this. Instead of playing this game, you could be talking instead about what video games, music, movies, teevee and the internet are doing to the minds of our young people. Not to mention other issues controlled by the Regressives.
.
It is a commentary on the state of our culture when it is accurately pointed out that guns are a dangerous tool in the hands of the mentally unbalanced and/or criminally inclined. We have laws that intend to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally unbalanced. What the regressives are seeking is federal control over an issue that is generally handled (albeit unevenly) at the city/state level.
You feel that the premise of this thread has been misunderstood. That may be. As I understand it - the premise is based on the belief that if inches are given at the federal level, then both sides will turn their attention to the 'real problem', cultural decay. Won't happen. One reason that it won't happen is because one side's cultural decay is the other side's longed for progress.
No it's notI'd just like to see enough done so that we could proceed to the REAL problem.
The real problem is the easy access to guns.
It doesn't matter if it's a person with mental illness or just someone who was having a bad day... the guns are the problem, not the motives behind the shooting.
Attacking a vulnerable population like the mentally ill is kind of typical for you, though.
I haven't seen any conversation about the role popular culture has played in the forming of these sociopaths, at least not for a very a long time, and definitely not since the Florida shooting. Not in any media, Left or Right, not in politics, nothing from public figures, and not on this board.Now that a couple of Regressive Leftists have joined the conversation, perhaps you'll see what I'm talking about.
They want to keep your focus on arguing about the 2nd Amendment, as they pretend that our popular culture is not contributing to the violence. They don't want what they support to be part of the conversation. They want to keep you on the defensive, just as they do in other ways. They want to make this SOLELY about guns.
The only question is whether you'll keep falling for this. Instead of playing this game, you could be talking instead about what video games, music, movies, teevee and the internet are doing to the minds of our young people. Not to mention other issues controlled by the Regressives.
.
You don't think that conversation is being held? 'We' can multitask with trains of thought...it's all interconnected.
What you perceive as defensive I perceive as a reality check in that ground has already been given - and compromise is not possible without honest brokers on both sides.
It is a commentary on the state of our culture when it is accurately pointed out that guns are a dangerous tool in the hands of the mentally unbalanced and/or criminally inclined. We have laws that intend to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally unbalanced. What the regressives are seeking is federal control over an issue that is generally handled (albeit unevenly) at the city/state level.
You feel that the premise of this thread has been misunderstood. That may be. As I understand it - the premise is based on the belief that if inches are given at the federal level, then both sides will turn their attention to the 'real problem', cultural decay. Won't happen. One reason that it won't happen is because one side's cultural decay is the other side's longed for progress.
The real problem is the easy access to guns.
It doesn't matter if it's a person with mental illness or just someone who was having a bad day... the guns are the problem, not the motives behind the shooting.
No it's not
70% of all murder in this country occurs in very distinct and small areas of 5% of all the counties in the country.
If you cared about the murder rate ( you don't but let's pretend for a second that you do) you would be talking about how to address the problem where most murders occur. If we got a handle on these areas our murder rate would actually drop by up to 70% and that would put us in the same ballpark as all those European socialist countries you love so much
But you don't ( No one does) really care about the murder rate because it is driven by young urban minorities killing other young urban minorities
The OP did not ‘assault’ the Second Amendment.
Nor is he suggesting that gun owners leave themselves “open to more abuse and erosion of our rights” – this is a lie, as ridiculous as it is wrong.
Rights can be neither ‘abused’ nor ‘eroded’ because they’re inalienable.
Right are subject to regulation by government consistent with the Constitution, where such regulation doesn’t constitute ‘abuse’ or ‘erosion.’
Government regulations repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated by the Supreme Court, including laws regulating Second Amendment rights.
All current firearm regulatory measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence – no rights’ abused,’ no rights ‘eroded.’
This post is yet another example of the ignorance of the law common to most on the right, of conservatives’ propensity for demagoguery and lying, and why it’s impossible to engage in good faith debate with conservatives capable of only being dishonest.
I've never had a thread be so completely misunderstood as this one.
Pretty freakin' fascinating.
No, Mac... everyone kind of has your number at this point.
I didn't kill anyone this year ... Nor will I agree to be punished for something I didn't do.
And the Parkland kids refuse to be punished for your fears and insecurities.
Don't much care what the rest of the world does nor whether you are fine with punishing someone for something they haven't done.
I'm fine with taking your guns because I don't trust you with them. That you consider that a punishment is on you.
You don't think that conversation is being held? 'We' can multitask with trains of thought...it's all interconnected.
What you perceive as defensive I perceive as a reality check in that ground has already been given - and compromise is not possible without honest brokers on both sides.
It is a commentary on the state of our culture when it is accurately pointed out that guns are a dangerous tool in the hands of the mentally unbalanced and/or criminally inclined. We have laws that intend to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally unbalanced. What the regressives are seeking is federal control over an issue that is generally handled (albeit unevenly) at the city/state level.
You feel that the premise of this thread has been misunderstood. That may be. As I understand it - the premise is based on the belief that if inches are given at the federal level, then both sides will turn their attention to the 'real problem', cultural decay. Won't happen. One reason that it won't happen is because one side's cultural decay is the other side's longed for progress.
I haven't seen any conversation about the role popular culture has played in the forming of these sociopaths, at least not for a very a long time, and definitely not since the Florida shooting. Not in any media, Left or Right, not in politics, nothing from public figures, and not on this board.
My point is we SHOULD be multi-tasking, we SHOULD be talking about both, but we're NOT.
And by the way, I'm not so sure we're capable of multi-tasking, not as l look at how binary and myopic our political discourse has become. Most of this thread has been gun supporters completely ignoring my point about popular culture and focusing entirely on their distorted perception that the thread is simply an attack on the 2nd Amendment. That's ALL they see, that's ALL they want to talk about. They're playing right into this by staying defensive on one single thing and not seeing anything else.
)
First, thanks for the civil and interesting reply. Tough to find, even in the CDZ.You don't think that conversation is being held? 'We' can multitask with trains of thought...it's all interconnected.
What you perceive as defensive I perceive as a reality check in that ground has already been given - and compromise is not possible without honest brokers on both sides.
It is a commentary on the state of our culture when it is accurately pointed out that guns are a dangerous tool in the hands of the mentally unbalanced and/or criminally inclined. We have laws that intend to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally unbalanced. What the regressives are seeking is federal control over an issue that is generally handled (albeit unevenly) at the city/state level.
You feel that the premise of this thread has been misunderstood. That may be. As I understand it - the premise is based on the belief that if inches are given at the federal level, then both sides will turn their attention to the 'real problem', cultural decay. Won't happen. One reason that it won't happen is because one side's cultural decay is the other side's longed for progress.
I haven't seen any conversation about the role popular culture has played in the forming of these sociopaths, at least not for a very a long time, and definitely not since the Florida shooting. Not in any media, Left or Right, not in politics, nothing from public figures, and not on this board.
My point is we SHOULD be multi-tasking, we SHOULD be talking about both, but we're NOT.
And by the way, I'm not so sure we're capable of multi-tasking, not as l look at how binary and myopic our political discourse has become. Most of this thread has been gun supporters completely ignoring my point about popular culture and focusing entirely on their distorted perception that the thread is simply an attack on the 2nd Amendment. That's ALL they see, that's ALL they want to talk about. They're playing right into this by staying defensive on one single thing and not seeing anything else.
I disagree. Your point, this thread, is multi-faceted and one of those facets involves further compromise on gun control in order to clear the way for a discussion on cultural decay...so a discussion on that facet is legit. It is also legit to point out that a 2-way discussion won't happen no matter how many inches are given. Why is the onus on the 2nd amendment supporter to 'give a little' so the Left will engage on societal ills. The Left will never do that...this is the culture they have built.
Most of us who support the 2nd amendment as written, loudly and clearly state the belief that our society is breaking down - and most of us who support the 2nd amendment as written do not want guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally unbalanced (sadly the latter would exclude regressives from gun ownership
Most of us who support the 2nd amendment as written also support the 1st amendment as written...which leads to caution regarding official censorship of speech and press. I do believe that voluntary purchases of violent music, games and movies are symptoms, not causes.
There is only one group of folks on here who are denying the erosion in our society, and refuse to discuss it. There is only one group on here who closed-mindedly believes society would benefit by the removal of all others who don't share their visions of the perfect world.
The camels nose is already under that tent - and the body is struggling to follow.
I'd just like to see enough done so that we could proceed to the REAL problem.
The real problem is the easy access to guns.
It doesn't matter if it's a person with mental illness or just someone who was having a bad day... the guns are the problem, not the motives behind the shooting.
Attacking a vulnerable population like the mentally ill is kind of typical for you, though.
First, thanks for the civil and interesting reply. Tough to find, even in the CDZ.You don't think that conversation is being held? 'We' can multitask with trains of thought...it's all interconnected.
What you perceive as defensive I perceive as a reality check in that ground has already been given - and compromise is not possible without honest brokers on both sides.
It is a commentary on the state of our culture when it is accurately pointed out that guns are a dangerous tool in the hands of the mentally unbalanced and/or criminally inclined. We have laws that intend to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally unbalanced. What the regressives are seeking is federal control over an issue that is generally handled (albeit unevenly) at the city/state level.
You feel that the premise of this thread has been misunderstood. That may be. As I understand it - the premise is based on the belief that if inches are given at the federal level, then both sides will turn their attention to the 'real problem', cultural decay. Won't happen. One reason that it won't happen is because one side's cultural decay is the other side's longed for progress.
I haven't seen any conversation about the role popular culture has played in the forming of these sociopaths, at least not for a very a long time, and definitely not since the Florida shooting. Not in any media, Left or Right, not in politics, nothing from public figures, and not on this board.
My point is we SHOULD be multi-tasking, we SHOULD be talking about both, but we're NOT.
And by the way, I'm not so sure we're capable of multi-tasking, not as l look at how binary and myopic our political discourse has become. Most of this thread has been gun supporters completely ignoring my point about popular culture and focusing entirely on their distorted perception that the thread is simply an attack on the 2nd Amendment. That's ALL they see, that's ALL they want to talk about. They're playing right into this by staying defensive on one single thing and not seeing anything else.
I disagree. Your point, this thread, is multi-faceted and one of those facets involves further compromise on gun control in order to clear the way for a discussion on cultural decay...so a discussion on that facet is legit. It is also legit to point out that a 2-way discussion won't happen no matter how many inches are given. Why is the onus on the 2nd amendment supporter to 'give a little' so the Left will engage on societal ills. The Left will never do that...this is the culture they have built.
Most of us who support the 2nd amendment as written, loudly and clearly state the belief that our society is breaking down - and most of us who support the 2nd amendment as written do not want guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally unbalanced (sadly the latter would exclude regressives from gun ownership
Most of us who support the 2nd amendment as written also support the 1st amendment as written...which leads to caution regarding official censorship of speech and press. I do believe that voluntary purchases of violent music, games and movies are symptoms, not causes.
There is only one group of folks on here who are denying the erosion in our society, and refuse to discuss it. There is only one group on here who closed-mindedly believes society would benefit by the removal of all others who don't share their visions of the perfect world.
The camels nose is already under that tent - and the body is struggling to follow.
Let's look at this from a tactical perspective: Assuming that your goal is to both protect the 2nd Amendment and reduce school shootings, wouldn't it make sense to illustrate the whole problem rather than allow it to be focused on just part of it?
For example, to bring it down to street level, why haven't I seen Trump "tweeting" about this? Why do I never see 2nd Amendment advocates bring it up in teevee "debates"? It just seems so obvious to me. I think they're stuck in this pattern of focusing on just the one thing - and that's precisely what your opponents want.
.
First, thanks for the civil and interesting reply. Tough to find, even in the CDZ.
Let's look at this from a tactical perspective: Assuming that your goal is to both protect the 2nd Amendment and reduce school shootings, wouldn't it make sense to illustrate the whole problem rather than allow it to be focused on just part of it?
For example, to bring it down to street level, why haven't I seen Trump "tweeting" about this? Why do I never see 2nd Amendment advocates bring it up in teevee "debates"? It just seems so obvious to me. I think they're stuck in this pattern of focusing on just the one thing - and that's precisely what your opponents want.
.
