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.
So... all of them."What do ya got?" - Marlon BrandoSo... what other rights are you willing to have taken away by a series of lesser of two evil choices?Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.There's no reason to accept a situation where you only choice ids the lesser of two evils. In doing that you only ensure eventual defeat - or, in this case, the eventual elimination of the right to arms.Which is why we have all these restrictive gun laws, because some folks, such as yourself can't see beyond the tip of your own nose. No offense.
But, it is good to see you understand how it is impossible to compromise here.
Why bother with the concept of rights if you're willing to allow all of them to be stripped away, and believe we should all do the same?
You did not answer the question.Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.So... all of them."What do ya got?" - Marlon BrandoSo... what other rights are you willing to have taken away by a series of lesser of two evil choices?Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.There's no reason to accept a situation where you only choice ids the lesser of two evils. In doing that you only ensure eventual defeat - or, in this case, the eventual elimination of the right to arms.
But, it is good to see you understand how it is impossible to compromise here.
Why bother with the concept of rights if you're willing to allow all of them to be stripped away, and believe we should all do the same?
Apparently, some people still think this is not just a good idea, but necessary.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts
You did not answer the question.Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.So... all of them."What do ya got?" - Marlon BrandoSo... what other rights are you willing to have taken away by a series of lesser of two evil choices?Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.
Why bother with the concept of rights if you're willing to allow all of them to be stripped away, and believe we should all do the same?
Only on liberal cartoon and comedy shows.Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.
You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.You did not answer the question.Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.So... all of them."What do ya got?" - Marlon BrandoSo... what other rights are you willing to have taken away by a series of lesser of two evil choices?
Why bother with the concept of rights if you're willing to allow all of them to be stripped away, and believe we should all do the same?
You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.You did not answer the question.Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.So... all of them."What do ya got?" - Marlon Brando
Why bother with the concept of rights if you're willing to allow all of them to be stripped away, and believe we should all do the same?
Keep pushing the envelope and one day a sane majority on the Supreme Court will finally decide the right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun is a privilege, not a right.
If you pull your gun and issue a final warning before you shoot, the situation has already escalated to the point where deadly force is justified.LOL. That will help a bunch as he's pounding her face in.9-1-1
Making a threat or giving a 'reasonable person' reason to believe a threat has been made is a crime. Call the police.
I ran my agency's domestic violence unit, you don't know a damn thing about the dynamics of that issue, and your belief that an armed victim is protected is foolish.
Presenting a firearm in defense usually only escalates the encounter.
Imagine many untrained gun users under combat stress lsoe control of their weapon to their attackers. And people who'd buy a gun in the first place to protect themselves against a known or likely threat may rely upon it instead of calling police, or use the weapon unjustifiably. Many scenarios where an untrained panicky person is worse off armed.
As you said:No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.You did not answer the question.Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.So... all of them.
Why bother with the concept of rights if you're willing to allow all of them to be stripped away, and believe we should all do the same?
You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.You did not answer the question.Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.So... all of them.
Why bother with the concept of rights if you're willing to allow all of them to be stripped away, and believe we should all do the same?
No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.
If you pull your gun and issue a final warning before you shoot, the situation has already escalated to the point where deadly force is justified.LOL. That will help a bunch as he's pounding her face in.9-1-1
Making a threat or giving a 'reasonable person' reason to believe a threat has been made is a crime. Call the police.
I ran my agency's domestic violence unit, you don't know a damn thing about the dynamics of that issue, and your belief that an armed victim is protected is foolish.
Presenting a firearm in defense usually only escalates the encounter.
Imagine many untrained gun users under combat stress lsoe control of their weapon to their attackers. And people who'd buy a gun in the first place to protect themselves against a known or likely threat may rely upon it instead of calling police, or use the weapon unjustifiably. Many scenarios where an untrained panicky person is worse off armed.
Whereas gun control proponents often argue that having a gun put people at risk because a criminal will take it away and use it against them, it seems the reality is more often to be the reverse situation. The Cato data contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender, but 277 where the intended victim disarmed the bad guy, although the authors acknowledge that these event reports may be printed more frequently due to newsworthiness.
Still, it should also be remembered that the threatened party often has more motivation to fight back than a criminal hoping for an easy score. There were 25 news reports where armed rape attack victims ultimately got the upper hand, and 65 where this occurred in carjacking attempts.
As you said:No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.You did not answer the question.Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.
Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.
At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?
None of thins negates the validity of what I said.Imagine many untrained gun users under combat stress lsoe control of their weapon to their attackers. And people who'd buy a gun in the first place to protect themselves against a known or likely threat may rely upon it instead of calling police, or use the weapon unjustifiably. Many scenarios where an untrained panicky person is worse off armed.If you pull your gun and issue a final warning before you shoot, the situation has already escalated to the point where deadly force is justified.I ran my agency's domestic violence unit, you don't know a damn thing about the dynamics of that issue, and your belief that an armed victim is protected is foolish.
Presenting a firearm in defense usually only escalates the encounter.
If the situation has risen to the point where you have a right to use deadly fore, pulling the gun cannot create an escalation.
In this specific point you're making sure. My point though was often times untrained people unaware of the laws regarding self-defense, as in the case of a first-time gun owner, they'll rely on the weapon prematurely, unjustifiably, or otherwise in error. You don't have a right to use lethal force because someone shoves you for example (except maybe in Florida when it's a black guy.)
You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.You did not answer the question.Tea Party didn't compromise and now they're redundant in American politics.
No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.
Where in the Constitution does it require a waiting period "to keep and bear arms"?
Yes... and why gun owners should be willing to compromise with their rights when the other side has nothing to offer in return.Seem to be going off the rails with hypotheticals. This is about waiting periods.
Without the compromise you're stuck on the unhappy end of a universal waiting period. With the compromise you wouldn't be effected by it. Thus the compromise is better. Sticking to your guns when doing so wont work is just stupid and self-defeating.
You apparently missed the various times I explained how it is, by definition, impossible to compromise with the people who want to take away gun rights as they have niohing to offer us in return for doing so.And you got 'assures the taking away of a right' guaranteed in the Constitution from that? As Bugs Bunny said, "It could be you Doc'."As you said:No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.You did not answer the question.
Lesser of two evils sums up politics and law well. If you think it works any other way wrong-o.
At what point do you stop accepting the lesser of two evils?
The game works by accepting compromise so you never stop doing so unless you've resigned yourself being eliminated from the game altogether. But accepting compromises that ensure law-abidding citizens keep their rights and curtails unlawful ones isn't any sort of threat to the law-abidding citizens.
I get the point that, as you argue, all we get in return for allowing an infringement of our right is to not suffer a greater infringement of our right. That's not compromise, that's taking the lesser of two evils.You get the exemption to the waiting period as it only effects first-time gun buyers. Did you miss that part?That's not at -all- necessarily so.Without the compromise you're stuck on the unhappy end of a universal waiting period.Yes... and why gun owners should be willing to compromise with their rights when the other side has nothing to offer in return.Seem to be going off the rails with hypotheticals. This is about waiting periods.
And it doesn't tell me what we get in return -- we give up something to get something in return; what do we get back?
Compromise means we get something in return for what we give up; those that want more gun control cannot offer us anything in return for giving up part of our rights, and so it is impossible for us to compromise with them.
You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.You did not answer the question.
No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.
Where in the Constitution does it require a waiting period "to keep and bear arms"?
Constitution doesn't say that as you well know. Or maybe ya don't never having bothered to actually read it.
