The Problem With GUN NUTS

Thomas Clarke said:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." — C.S. Lewis
Click to expand...

Journalist Mark Sherman wrote for The Associated Press 22 April 2014:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, two of which are directly related to guns. ...His proposed amendments generally would overrule major Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, including ones on guns... Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing "whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again." ...One amendment would allow Congress to force state participation in gun checks, while a second would change the Second Amendment to permit gun control. ...Stevens was on the losing end of another 5-4 decision in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared for the first time that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.

He acknowledged that his proposed change would allow Congress to do something unthinkable in today's environment: ban gun ownership altogether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article
 
indago said:
Stevens was on the losing end of another 5-4 decision in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared for the first time that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And isn't it a wonderment, though, that the Supreme Court finally acknowledged what anybody with any sense knew all along...
 
indago said:
Journalist Mark Sherman wrote for The Associated Press 22 April 2014:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, two of which are directly related to guns. ...His proposed amendments generally would overrule major Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, including ones on guns... Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing "whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again." ...One amendment would allow Congress to force state participation in gun checks, while a second would change the Second Amendment to permit gun control. ...Stevens was on the losing end of another 5-4 decision in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared for the first time that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.

He acknowledged that his proposed change would allow Congress to do something unthinkable in today's environment: ban gun ownership altogether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article
Click to expand...

Justice Stevens is a clueless Liberal dunce that falls for the naive stupid idealism that argues that if guns are banned, criminals will suddenly stop using them.

Liberals are painfully stupid, dishonest and naive dunces.
 
Taft2016 said:
I wouldn't attribute this to "conservatives" in general. This is technology that's been in debate for at least 20 years now, and informed gun advocates and opponents are long familiar with it.

That a blogger somewhere chose to go all conspiracy theory on it doesn't mean it's a "conservative meme," any more than 911 Truthers are a "liberal meme."
Click to expand...


Have you seen the responses I've gotten from the JPP gun lovers for even suggesting such an idea?

Over and over we are told how 2nd amendment supporters are willing to have a discussion about ways to make guns safer without placing any restrictions on their owners, but each and every attempt at having a dialogue ends just as this thread has, with nothing but petty taunts and insults from the pro-gun posters.
 
Damocles said:
Imagine a requisite to wear a bracelet to vote (one you couldn't get without passing certain tests that showed you were responsible enough to vote)... One you have to purchase yourself, a nice little "fee" (not tax) to cast a ballot... Zappa would suddenly understand that such an item is truly a violation of what should be a fundamental right, one so important that the founders made it one of the enumerated rights asserted in the central governing document for this nation.... (unlike voting, for instance).
Click to expand...


Apples and Oranges...but since it allows Damo to denigrate someone for attempting an honest dialogue about gun safety, it's outright ignored by the other gun nuts.
 
Truth Detector said:
Justice Stevens is a clueless Liberal dunce that falls for the naive stupid idealism that argues that if guns are banned, criminals will suddenly stop using them.

Liberals are painfully stupid, dishonest and naive dunces.
Click to expand...

now if only you conservative retards would understand that this same logic applies to drugs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top