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

Nordberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

what do you plan to do about limiting the power of government over the people BEFORE you limit the rights of the people then?????????
 
SmarterthanYou said:
but you have no power to prevent them from using those same weapons against civilian american citizens, so why do you support tyranny?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
christiefan915 said:
First you have to explain under what circumstance would the government use those weapons against American citizens. Another Civil War?
Click to expand...
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.

christiefan915 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
christiefan915 said:
Seems to me that you think government tyranny is just waiting to happen while I think it isn't.
Click to expand...
government ALWAYS seeks to increase it's power. that you don't understand that is your issue.

christiefan915 said:
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.
Click to expand...

what happens if there is actually a fire in that theater. are you still charged?????
 
SmarterthanYou said:
government ALWAYS seeks to increase it's power. that you don't understand that is your issue.
Click to expand...

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?????
Click to expand...

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.”
 
christiefan915 said:
I do understand that. However I don't believe it means to tyrannize the citizens, as I define tyranny.
Click to expand...
the only way to increase government power is to take away from the people, so that you cannot understand that is your issue.

christiefan915 said:
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.”
Click to expand...

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
 
Nordberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

I own FOUR AR-15s. When are you going to try and regulate mine, boy?
 
Flash said:
Emotional crap from both sides.
Click to expand...

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.
 
christiefan915 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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
Click to expand...
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, plus public opinion wouldn't let the (for instance) U.S. forces flatten the North Vietnamese as per Curtis LeMay's advice.

So -- I guess our resident gun-humpers are ready and willing to live life on the run, as guerillas, fighting against the U.S. armed forces (who they claim to adore) in order to be "free." Good luck with that shit. LOL @ the morons.
 
2659214a-904b-49b5-9aa0-2a850cea78cf.png

05080f91-742a-4e3a-a193-ff906e7b07bc.png
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Yeah, plus public opinion wouldn't let the (for instance) U.S. forces flatten the North Vietnamese as per Curtis LeMay's advice.

So -- I guess our resident gun-humpers are ready and willing to live life on the run, as guerillas, fighting against the U.S. armed forces (who they claim to adore) in order to be "free." Good luck with that shit. LOL @ the morons.
Click to expand...

Are you willing to give your life to take my 2nd Amendment right?
 
Nomad said:
Oh shut up, pussy.

Internet tough guys like you aren't going to take anyone's life.

Now go have yourself a good cry, little missy.
Click to expand...

Ha... perfect response.

We used to watch that program "Doomsday Preppers." It was filled with wannabe-tough-guys like most of the guntards here. Idiots who thought that having an arsenal of guns/bombs, a room full of canned shit, and a bug-out bag was going to make them survivors in some universal disaster thing. This is more like the reality of what happens with these jokers like the gun-humpers here. Tough Guy Prepper Tim shoots his own thumb off. And passes out. LOLOLOL

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top