It is pointless to exchange with a gun hugger on gun reform,

[SmarterthanYou]

A few years ago, even the NRA was on board with background checks. But gun manufacturers are in charge of that organization and saw more sales by eliminating it. You gun lovers are protecting the maufacturers with citing a weak and terrible constitutional basis. It was written in about 1776. That does not cover what guns have become. Long past time to do something about guns. The 2nd does not eliminate cbackground checks. It does not eliminate selling guns to kids. It does not cover selling to mentally deficients. That is because they never thought of it. Not because it is not needed. Time to grow up and do the right thing.

what do you plan to do about limiting the power of government over the people BEFORE you limit the rights of the people then?????????

[christiefan915]

but you have no power to prevent them from using those same weapons against civilian american citizens, so why do you support tyranny?

First you have to explain under what circumstance would the government use those weapons against American citizens. Another Civil War?

over the years here you have shown yourself to be intelligent, so how can you possibly think that there are no freedoms being taken away by government, even without talking about arms?

I consider the Patriot Act, the Muslim ban, the potential wall, the push for voter photo ID etc. as limiting rights yet conservatives love these things. So I don't understand why those limitations are good while any regulation on guns is considered bad.

[Nordberg]

The Supreme Court let stand a 4th District Court ruling that Maryland can prohibit assault weapons and extra large capacity magazines. So yes, guns can be regulated and they should be.

[SmarterthanYou]

First you have to explain under what circumstance would the government use those weapons against American citizens. Another Civil War?

you've been asked before if the government would drop nukes on it's citizenry....you said you didn't know. that's fine if you want to gauge every conflict as it happens, but what you have to then determine is what does a populace who is outgunned do against such a tyranny.

I consider the Patriot Act, the Muslim ban, the potential wall, the push for voter photo ID etc. as limiting rights yet conservatives love these things. So I don't understand why those limitations are good while any regulation on guns is considered bad.

I also consider those things outside of the governments power, but does that have to force you to accept the limitation of rights because you fear what the other side will do with those regulations?

[SmarterthanYou]

The Supreme Court let stand a 4th District Court ruling that Maryland can prohibit assault weapons and extra large capacity magazines. So yes, guns can be regulated and they should be.

courts are never wrong, correct? so dredd v. scott was correct, as was citizens united?

[christiefan915]

you've been asked before if the government would drop nukes on it's citizenry....you said you didn't know. that's fine if you want to gauge every conflict as it happens, but what you have to then determine is what does a populace who is outgunned do against such a tyranny.

Seems to me that you think government tyranny is just waiting to happen while I think it isn't.

I also consider those things outside of the governments power, but does that have to force you to accept the limitation of rights because you fear what the other side will do with those regulations?

I accept that I'm forbidden to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre but am not worried that my right to free speech is taken away because of that.

[SmarterthanYou]

Seems to me that you think government tyranny is just waiting to happen while I think it isn't.

government ALWAYS seeks to increase it's power. that you don't understand that is your issue.

I accept that I'm forbidden to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre but am not worried that my right to free speech is taken away because of that.

what happens if there is actually a fire in that theater. are you still charged?????

[christiefan915]

government ALWAYS seeks to increase it's power. that you don't understand that is your issue.

I do understand that. However I don't believe it means to tyrannize the citizens, as I define tyranny.

what happens if there is actually a fire in that theater. are you still charged?????

Obviously not. The actual line is “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

[SmarterthanYou]

I do understand that. However I don't believe it means to tyrannize the citizens, as I define tyranny.

the only way to increase government power is to take away from the people, so that you cannot understand that is your issue.

Obviously not. The actual line is “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/t...ip-are-enough/

[Flash]

That's the same comment I make every time a conservative calls me a murderer because I'm pro-choice but never had an abortion.

Emotional crap from both sides.

[CFM]

The Supreme Court let stand a 4th District Court ruling that Maryland can prohibit assault weapons and extra large capacity magazines. So yes, guns can be regulated and they should be.

I own FOUR AR-15s. When are you going to try and regulate mine, boy?

[CFM]

Emotional crap from both sides.

The saddest, and equally hypocritical, thing about christie's statement is that while I've never done what the shooter of any mass murder has done, nor would I, her and those like her group those of us that support the 2nd amendment right beside those that do the shootings.

[ThatOwlWoman]

I support the government having the right kind of weapons to defend the country against hostile invaders. That doesn't mean individuals having the right to own tanks, missiles or nukes.

What do you believe the government is doing to take away your freedoms that would make you take up arms?

Excellent question. I would also ask how they think they can somehow fight off the government's tanks, missiles, gases, even nukes with their puny-by-comparison pop guns. Entire well-equipped armies have tried and failed. The idea that having a gun is going to keep the government from doing something nefarious is something only a moron would believe.

They just don't want to admit that the real reason they have guns is because they tremble in fear of their fellow citizens, who in turn fear them.

[Flash]

Excellent question. I would also ask how they think they can somehow fight off the government's tanks, missiles, gases, even nukes with their puny-by-comparison pop guns. Entire well-equipped armies have tried and failed. The idea that having a gun is going to keep the government from doing something nefarious is something only a moron would believe.

That makes sense, but the Vietnamese, Pashtuns, American Revolutionaries, Cubans, and many other small bands of fighters have been able to defeat much bigger armies; of course, fighting abroad made it more difficult than fighting at home.

[sear]

"I accept that I'm forbidden to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre but am not worried that my right to free speech is taken away because of that." c9

"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen