Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
johns624
Posts: 5168
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:36 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Surely where he went and why are relevant.
Yes, and no. There is a big difference between something being stupid to do and something being illegal to do. He's sort of a younger, stupider version of George Zimmerman. At the time that they pulled the trigger, they might have been in fear of their lives. All the conscious decisions that they made up to that point to put themselves there voluntarily, is where the problem lies. Neither one had a logical reason to be where they were, but it wasn't illegal, just stupid.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:16 am

Veigar wrote:
Elkadad313 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
None it makes any sense. Police are supposedly there to enforce laws as are attorneys. But, they do not in Chicago but they do in the rest of Illinois? There is so much to unpack here. Not to mention half the posters defend Rittenhouse because "he didn't buy a gun" vs. the other half who defend Rittenhouse because "he bought a gun". Maybe this is why attorneys in Chicago don't do anything about gun laws? Not because of "liberal" policies, but, rather, because of the schizophrenic ways people defend them?

Chicago’s police enforce gun laws to the extent politically permissible under a 99% Democrat city/county administration. But the police can only arrest and charge offenders. It’s up to the corrupt Cook County state’s attorney’s office to pursue and obtain indictments and convictions, at which its performance is woefully and intentionally poor.
Most ‘2A people’ are not defending Rittenhouse, they are defending his right to simply get a fair trial. You do want him to have a fair trial, regardless of your bias, don’t you?
Chicago! Chicago! Chicago! So what? Why are you 2A people defending Rittenhouse but not defending the people of Chicago who are allegedly charged with weapons possession?


Most ‘2A people’ are not defending Rittenhouse, they are defending the right of law-abiding citizens, regardless of where they reside, to be protected from gun-related crime. Your contention that 2A people do not defend those charged with gun crimes is absurd on its face. 2A people support fair and equal justice, and despite the efforts of the police the city/county politicians have the last say in the matter (and gun law offenders are treated with leniency compared to the rest of the state).

seb146 wrote:
Could it be that those who are charged with weapons possession have those charges dropped because there are more serious charges to pursue? Or could it be that the 2A group is chomping at the bit for law enforcement in Chicago to enforce Chicago law so they can get another 2A law suit under way?


How many more serious crimes than those committed with firearms are there? Get real! Your posts are full of generalizations, straying from the intent of the OP’s thread. I suggest you start a thread that conforms to your agenda instead of attempting to redefine the purpose of this one.

johns624 wrote:
I never defended Rittenhouse. He's an idiot. I was told decades ago "Never go somewhere with a gun that you wouldn't go unarmed". Why won't you admit that it's gangs and drugs that are the problem, and not guns?


Seb is determined to find causes that largely don’t exist as he is incapable of admitting what he knows to the real problem.



I've only really seen pro 2A folks say it was a shitty situation all around, but that his right to self defense is still there regardless of where he went and why. I won't defend his cause and "patriotism" (since that's a very subjective thing), but no matter what happens, I won't invalidate one's right to self defense just because they aren't old enough to carry a weapon.


It was illegal for him to own a gun, yet he bought one. It was illegal for him to cross state lines with a gun he was not legally able to own, yet he did. He gunned down people, killing two but it was "self defense" in a community and a state he did not even live in or own property in.

But, yeah, let's enforce current gun laws. Hunting game in his legal state of residence with a legal gun owner is fine. No one disputes that. Using a gun AS AN ADULT to defend his home his name is on people dispute but, fine.

He crossed state lines with a gun he never should have owned and murdered people. Which "well regulated militia" did he belong to? Why can we not enforce current laws?
 
johns624
Posts: 5168
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:50 pm

If the police had enforced the laws, there wouldn't have been a riot...
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:52 pm

seb146 wrote:
Veigar wrote:
Elkadad313 wrote:


Most ‘2A people’ are not defending Rittenhouse, they are defending the right of law-abiding citizens, regardless of where they reside, to be protected from gun-related crime. Your contention that 2A people do not defend those charged with gun crimes is absurd on its face. 2A people support fair and equal justice, and despite the efforts of the police the city/county politicians have the last say in the matter (and gun law offenders are treated with leniency compared to the rest of the state).



How many more serious crimes than those committed with firearms are there? Get real! Your posts are full of generalizations, straying from the intent of the OP’s thread. I suggest you start a thread that conforms to your agenda instead of attempting to redefine the purpose of this one.



Seb is determined to find causes that largely don’t exist as he is incapable of admitting what he knows to the real problem.



I've only really seen pro 2A folks say it was a shitty situation all around, but that his right to self defense is still there regardless of where he went and why. I won't defend his cause and "patriotism" (since that's a very subjective thing), but no matter what happens, I won't invalidate one's right to self defense just because they aren't old enough to carry a weapon.


It was illegal for him to own a gun, yet he bought one. It was illegal for him to cross state lines with a gun he was not legally able to own, yet he did. He gunned down people, killing two but it was "self defense" in a community and a state he did not even live in or own property in.

But, yeah, let's enforce current gun laws. Hunting game in his legal state of residence with a legal gun owner is fine. No one disputes that. Using a gun AS AN ADULT to defend his home his name is on people dispute but, fine.

He crossed state lines with a gun he never should have owned and murdered people. Which "well regulated militia" did he belong to? Why can we not enforce current laws?


Didn’t you actually read, not skim, the articles? He DID NOT buy it, Mr Black bought it for him, an illegal straw purchase. Black has been charged with felony violation of the law on purchases and transfers. What process do you propose to stop people crossing state lines with legal or illegal guns? Ports of entry inspecting all vehicles.

Everything is simple, if you don’t know a thing about it.

Read question 21a,
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473- ... 9/download
 
Elkadad313
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:55 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:45 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Veigar wrote:


I've only really seen pro 2A folks say it was a shitty situation all around, but that his right to self defense is still there regardless of where he went and why. I won't defend his cause and "patriotism" (since that's a very subjective thing), but no matter what happens, I won't invalidate one's right to self defense just because they aren't old enough to carry a weapon.


It was illegal for him to own a gun, yet he bought one. It was illegal for him to cross state lines with a gun he was not legally able to own, yet he did. He gunned down people, killing two but it was "self defense" in a community and a state he did not even live in or own property in.

But, yeah, let's enforce current gun laws. Hunting game in his legal state of residence with a legal gun owner is fine. No one disputes that. Using a gun AS AN ADULT to defend his home his name is on people dispute but, fine.

He crossed state lines with a gun he never should have owned and murdered people. Which "well regulated militia" did he belong to? Why can we not enforce current laws?


Didn’t you actually read, not skim, the articles? He DID NOT buy it, Mr Black bought it for him, an illegal straw purchase. Black has been charged with felony violation of the law on purchases and transfers. What process do you propose to stop people crossing state lines with legal or illegal guns? Ports of entry inspecting all vehicles.

Everything is simple, if you don’t know a thing about it.

Read question 21a,
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473- ... 9/download

'Don't Confuse Me With the Facts (My Mind is Made Up)' exemplifies Seb's general approach in debating a variety of topics.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:07 pm

Elkadad313 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

It was illegal for him to own a gun, yet he bought one. It was illegal for him to cross state lines with a gun he was not legally able to own, yet he did. He gunned down people, killing two but it was "self defense" in a community and a state he did not even live in or own property in.

But, yeah, let's enforce current gun laws. Hunting game in his legal state of residence with a legal gun owner is fine. No one disputes that. Using a gun AS AN ADULT to defend his home his name is on people dispute but, fine.

He crossed state lines with a gun he never should have owned and murdered people. Which "well regulated militia" did he belong to? Why can we not enforce current laws?


Didn’t you actually read, not skim, the articles? He DID NOT buy it, Mr Black bought it for him, an illegal straw purchase. Black has been charged with felony violation of the law on purchases and transfers. What process do you propose to stop people crossing state lines with legal or illegal guns? Ports of entry inspecting all vehicles.

Everything is simple, if you don’t know a thing about it.

Read question 21a,
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473- ... 9/download

'Don't Confuse Me With the Facts (My Mind is Made Up)' exemplifies Seb's general approach in debating a variety of topics.


You keep acting like I never saw the part where he crossed state lines with a gun he got through an illegal purchase. But, somehow, Rittenhouse is the victim? I thought there were untold straw purchases in Chicago that we need to do something about but we should ignore this straw purchase?
 
johns624
Posts: 5168
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:27 pm

seb146 wrote:
Elkadad313 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Didn’t you actually read, not skim, the articles? He DID NOT buy it, Mr Black bought it for him, an illegal straw purchase. Black has been charged with felony violation of the law on purchases and transfers. What process do you propose to stop people crossing state lines with legal or illegal guns? Ports of entry inspecting all vehicles.

Everything is simple, if you don’t know a thing about it.

Read question 21a,
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473- ... 9/download

'Don't Confuse Me With the Facts (My Mind is Made Up)' exemplifies Seb's general approach in debating a variety of topics.


You keep acting like I never saw the part where he crossed state lines with a gun he got through an illegal purchase. But, somehow, Rittenhouse is the victim? I thought there were untold straw purchases in Chicago that we need to do something about but we should ignore this straw purchase?

Quit stereotyping and lumping all gun owners together. Many of us think he was an idiot. All straw sales should be prosecuted.
 
Elkadad313
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:55 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:33 pm

seb146 wrote:
You keep acting like I never saw the part where he crossed state lines with a gun he got through an illegal purchase. But, somehow, Rittenhouse is the victim? I thought there were untold straw purchases in Chicago that we need to do something about but we should ignore this straw purchase?

Most on the right do not view Rittenhouse as a victim. The justice system will deal with him.

Back to this thread's topic: Straw sales bad. Ghost guns bad. Existing gun laws sufficient and much more effective if followed and applied equally to EVERYONE.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:12 am

johns624 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Elkadad313 wrote:
'Don't Confuse Me With the Facts (My Mind is Made Up)' exemplifies Seb's general approach in debating a variety of topics.


You keep acting like I never saw the part where he crossed state lines with a gun he got through an illegal purchase. But, somehow, Rittenhouse is the victim? I thought there were untold straw purchases in Chicago that we need to do something about but we should ignore this straw purchase?

Quit stereotyping and lumping all gun owners together. Many of us think he was an idiot. All straw sales should be prosecuted.


Nope. As long as 2A people keep saying "all 'liberals' want to take all our guns away" why should I stop "stereotyping and lumping all gun owners"? Silence on a man who made a straw purchase and crossed state lines to gun down people but "liberals" are the problem? Silence on a kid playing with a toy who is gunned down? Silence on "but that thing in his hand was a phone" and was gunned down. These same people who demand all unborn are 100% lives and we have to respect life because of abortion but a 12 year old should know better. It is celebrated for one to kill but not another. These need to be discussed separately and at the same time. Why is one life needed but another not?
 
User avatar
Veigar
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:36 pm

Why are state borders an issue to some of you? Shouldn't the states be UNITED? It's not like they're a different country...

Anyways, opinions aside, misdemeanors/smaller crimes doesn't mean you should just let someone kill you because you are guilty of such. I am not defending his "cause", because again, that's subjective. I looked at the video, watched videos made by actual defense attorneys and people who are lawyers and know tons about self defense and the legal use of lethal force, all of them seem to agree that his use of lethal force was justified. He is charged with second degree murder. His manslaughter charges were dropped. I don't see how they can prove intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt. I will guess they will just try to get him to take a plea deal.

bennett123 wrote:
Surely where he went and why are relevant.


I disagree with it being like George Zimmerman. It was a protest. Those things are usually not just someone shoving themselves into a sticky situation for no reason. If you read up on some of the background info, a lot of the rioters there were bussed in from 45+ minute drive distances. That's the thing though, as I said, they're protests. We don't have any jurisdiction telling someone they can't go where they please, to preach their cause, etc. It's not really fair to judge it like anything else. Why was anyone there? Logically, they all had better things to do. But they decided to protest. It's a constitutional right.

Cheers
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Tue Nov 24, 2020 3:52 pm

seb146 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

You keep acting like I never saw the part where he crossed state lines with a gun he got through an illegal purchase. But, somehow, Rittenhouse is the victim? I thought there were untold straw purchases in Chicago that we need to do something about but we should ignore this straw purchase?

Quit stereotyping and lumping all gun owners together. Many of us think he was an idiot. All straw sales should be prosecuted.


Nope. As long as 2A people keep saying "all 'liberals' want to take all our guns away" why should I stop "stereotyping and lumping all gun owners"? Silence on a man who made a straw purchase and crossed state lines to gun down people but "liberals" are the problem? Silence on a kid playing with a toy who is gunned down? Silence on "but that thing in his hand was a phone" and was gunned down. These same people who demand all unborn are 100% lives and we have to respect life because of abortion but a 12 year old should know better. It is celebrated for one to kill but not another. These need to be discussed separately and at the same time. Why is one life needed but another not?


On the instant case, the straw purchaser is charged and quite possibly will go to prison while the shooter gets off. Not silence, it’s law and what do YOU propose? I propose no new laws that cannot or will not be enforced.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Tue Nov 24, 2020 6:17 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Quit stereotyping and lumping all gun owners together. Many of us think he was an idiot. All straw sales should be prosecuted.


Nope. As long as 2A people keep saying "all 'liberals' want to take all our guns away" why should I stop "stereotyping and lumping all gun owners"? Silence on a man who made a straw purchase and crossed state lines to gun down people but "liberals" are the problem? Silence on a kid playing with a toy who is gunned down? Silence on "but that thing in his hand was a phone" and was gunned down. These same people who demand all unborn are 100% lives and we have to respect life because of abortion but a 12 year old should know better. It is celebrated for one to kill but not another. These need to be discussed separately and at the same time. Why is one life needed but another not?


On the instant case, the straw purchaser is charged and quite possibly will go to prison while the shooter gets off. Not silence, it’s law and what do YOU propose? I propose no new laws that cannot or will not be enforced.


So you are okay with someone seeking out a gun that should not legally have one but... but... but.. CHICAGO!!! where it happens all the time? And when that person who should not legally have a gun commits a crime with the same gun, just don't prosecute at all? Like when that person guns down two people? Just don't punish him in any way?
 
johns624
Posts: 5168
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:10 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Nope. As long as 2A people keep saying "all 'liberals' want to take all our guns away" why should I stop "stereotyping and lumping all gun owners"? Silence on a man who made a straw purchase and crossed state lines to gun down people but "liberals" are the problem? Silence on a kid playing with a toy who is gunned down? Silence on "but that thing in his hand was a phone" and was gunned down. These same people who demand all unborn are 100% lives and we have to respect life because of abortion but a 12 year old should know better. It is celebrated for one to kill but not another. These need to be discussed separately and at the same time. Why is one life needed but another not?


On the instant case, the straw purchaser is charged and quite possibly will go to prison while the shooter gets off. Not silence, it’s law and what do YOU propose? I propose no new laws that cannot or will not be enforced.


So you are okay with someone seeking out a gun that should not legally have one but... but... but.. CHICAGO!!! where it happens all the time? And when that person who should not legally have a gun commits a crime with the same gun, just don't prosecute at all? Like when that person guns down two people? Just don't punish him in any way?
He never said that. You see what you want to see. First, you need to educate yourself on the law.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:38 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Nope. As long as 2A people keep saying "all 'liberals' want to take all our guns away" why should I stop "stereotyping and lumping all gun owners"? Silence on a man who made a straw purchase and crossed state lines to gun down people but "liberals" are the problem? Silence on a kid playing with a toy who is gunned down? Silence on "but that thing in his hand was a phone" and was gunned down. These same people who demand all unborn are 100% lives and we have to respect life because of abortion but a 12 year old should know better. It is celebrated for one to kill but not another. These need to be discussed separately and at the same time. Why is one life needed but another not?


On the instant case, the straw purchaser is charged and quite possibly will go to prison while the shooter gets off. Not silence, it’s law and what do YOU propose? I propose no new laws that cannot or will not be enforced.


So you are okay with someone seeking out a gun that should not legally have one but... but... but.. CHICAGO!!! where it happens all the time? And when that person who should not legally have a gun commits a crime with the same gun, just don't prosecute at all? Like when that person guns down two people? Just don't punish him in any way?


When did I say that’s illegal straw purchases are okay? When did I say a murderer should not be punished, which by the way should happen at the end of rope within days of conviction. People can, and will, seek out all kinds of illegal substances including guns, fact being, they likely will find someone to meet that demand. How do you stop it? The law is just sign that says, “don’t go here”. I don’t have an answer to illegal acts other than punishment more draconian than I believe you’d countenance.

Rittenhouse and Black have been charged, will go through what passes for justice system and either be acquitted or convicted of something. Black’s case, to me, looks clear cut violation of Federal law in that he bought a firearm for an illegal owner (straw purchase). Murder, manslaughter charges for Rittenhouse are wormy because bleeding hearts have made conviction on felonious assault difficult with several gradations of both murder or manslaughter.

So, say what you really want—mass confiscation, locking up legal owners because that’s where you’re going.
 
Elkadad313
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:55 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:57 pm

johns624 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

On the instant case, the straw purchaser is charged and quite possibly will go to prison while the shooter gets off. Not silence, it’s law and what do YOU propose? I propose no new laws that cannot or will not be enforced.

So you are okay with someone seeking out a gun that should not legally have one but... but... but.. CHICAGO!!! where it happens all the time? And when that person who should not legally have a gun commits a crime with the same gun, just don't prosecute at all? Like when that person guns down two people? Just don't punish him in any way?

He never said that. You see what you want to see. First, you need to educate yourself on the law.


He is a clear example of a myopic, binary thinker.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

On the instant case, the straw purchaser is charged and quite possibly will go to prison while the shooter gets off. Not silence, it’s law and what do YOU propose? I propose no new laws that cannot or will not be enforced.



So you are okay with someone seeking out a gun that should not legally have one but... but... but.. CHICAGO!!! where it happens all the time? And when that person who should not legally have a gun commits a crime with the same gun, just don't prosecute at all? Like when that person guns down two people? Just don't punish him in any way?

When did I say that’s illegal straw purchases are okay? When did I say a murderer should not be punished, which by the way should happen at the end of rope within days of conviction. People can, and will, seek out all kinds of illegal substances including guns, fact being, they likely will find someone to meet that demand. How do you stop it? The law is just sign that says, “don’t go here”. I don’t have an answer to illegal acts other than punishment more draconian than I believe you’d countenance.
Rittenhouse and Black have been charged, will go through what passes for justice system and either be acquitted or convicted of something. Black’s case, to me, looks clear cut violation of Federal law in that he bought a firearm for an illegal owner (straw purchase). Murder, manslaughter charges for Rittenhouse are wormy because bleeding hearts have made conviction on felonious assault difficult with several gradations of both murder or manslaughter.
So, say what you really want—mass confiscation, locking up legal owners because that’s where you’re going.

They strongly deny it while continuing to take baby steps.
 
LOT767301ER
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:14 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:12 am

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Nope. As long as 2A people keep saying "all 'liberals' want to take all our guns away" why should I stop "stereotyping and lumping all gun owners"? Silence on a man who made a straw purchase and crossed state lines to gun down people but "liberals" are the problem? Silence on a kid playing with a toy who is gunned down? Silence on "but that thing in his hand was a phone" and was gunned down. These same people who demand all unborn are 100% lives and we have to respect life because of abortion but a 12 year old should know better. It is celebrated for one to kill but not another. These need to be discussed separately and at the same time. Why is one life needed but another not?


On the instant case, the straw purchaser is charged and quite possibly will go to prison while the shooter gets off. Not silence, it’s law and what do YOU propose? I propose no new laws that cannot or will not be enforced.


So you are okay with someone seeking out a gun that should not legally have one but... but... but.. CHICAGO!!! where it happens all the time? And when that person who should not legally have a gun commits a crime with the same gun, just don't prosecute at all? Like when that person guns down two people? Just don't punish him in any way?


I cant help but wonder if you have some sort of developmental/comprehension disorder at this point. Its been going on for years and this latest thread is just another clear cut example. You have 2 pages worth of different users who are pretty much apolitically and sans-emotion telling you what is legal and not legal and yet you are constantly rambling about what someone said when no one has said anything of what you accuse them of. What is your end game when you roll into a thread like this?
 
johns624
Posts: 5168
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:52 am

LOT767301ER wrote:

I cant help but wonder if you have some sort of developmental/comprehension disorder at this point. Its been going on for years and this latest thread is just another clear cut example. You have 2 pages worth of different users who are pretty much apolitically and sans-emotion telling you what is legal and not legal and yet you are constantly rambling about what someone said when no one has said anything of what you accuse them of. What is your end game when you roll into a thread like this?
He has an irrational gun phobia, and has for years. Many years ago he was claiming to see many people in San Francisco in popular areas carrying concealed weapons. Even when it was pointed out to him (with statistics) how few Concealed Weapons permits California handed out (very few) and that these must've been plainclothes police (if they really existed), he wouldn't back down.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 3097
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Wed Nov 25, 2020 11:43 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

So, say what you really want—mass confiscation, locking up legal owners because that’s where you’re going.



Who is talking about locking up legal owners? Making a type contraband is a legislative process. If you make a thing illegal to posses, those who continue are, by definition, engaged in criminal behavior. Nothing legal about that.
 
Elkadad313
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:55 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:21 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

So, say what you really want—mass confiscation, locking up legal owners because that’s where you’re going.



Who is talking about locking up legal owners? Making a type contraband is a legislative process. If you make a thing illegal to posses, those who continue are, by definition, engaged in criminal behavior. Nothing legal about that.

Classic doublespeak. So, the left is not talking about locking up legal owners outright. Instead, as you state, it will strive to make it illegal to posses firearms. If they are not turned in, THEN the legal owners will be locked up.

I'd like to know how lefties plan to remove illegal firearms from those in the inner city (of course, by then losing those votes may not matter).
 
User avatar
Veigar
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:36 am

Elkadad313 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

So, say what you really want—mass confiscation, locking up legal owners because that’s where you’re going.



Who is talking about locking up legal owners? Making a type contraband is a legislative process. If you make a thing illegal to posses, those who continue are, by definition, engaged in criminal behavior. Nothing legal about that.

Classic doublespeak. So, the left is not talking about locking up legal owners outright. Instead, as you state, it will strive to make it illegal to posses firearms. If they are not turned in, THEN the legal owners will be locked up.

I'd like to know how lefties plan to remove illegal firearms from those in the inner city (of course, by then losing those votes may not matter).


You already know what would happen if officers attempted gun confiscations. That's assuming police officers would all unanimously agree to try and confiscate weapons. A lot of the gun laws are very poorly enforced because a lot of police officers don't enforce unconstitutional laws. If, say, they did make AR-15s illegal (this seems to be the left's worst enemy), and there was a national mandatory buyback, that somehow gets through all branches of government, expect a civil war.
 
Elkadad313
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:55 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:59 am

Veigar wrote:
Elkadad313 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:


Who is talking about locking up legal owners? Making a type contraband is a legislative process. If you make a thing illegal to posses, those who continue are, by definition, engaged in criminal behavior. Nothing legal about that.

Classic doublespeak. So, the left is not talking about locking up legal owners outright. Instead, as you state, it will strive to make it illegal to posses firearms. If they are not turned in, THEN the legal owners will be locked up.

I'd like to know how lefties plan to remove illegal firearms from those in the inner city (of course, by then losing those votes may not matter).


You already know what would happen if officers attempted gun confiscations. That's assuming police officers would all unanimously agree to try and confiscate weapons. A lot of the gun laws are very poorly enforced because a lot of police officers don't enforce unconstitutional laws. If, say, they did make AR-15s illegal (this seems to be the left's worst enemy), and there was a national mandatory buyback, that somehow gets through all branches of government, expect a civil war.

If we knew it would definitely cease with the AR-15s that would be a great compromise with which most everyone could agree, however, we know the left won’t stop there. Baby steps. God forbid that one day years from now someone is violently killed via toothbrush.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Thu Nov 26, 2020 7:22 am

I find it interesting that many arguments given for no change to gun laws is that they were written into the constitution and so are set in stone. However they are talking about the 2nd AMENDMENT to the constitution, which was written only 4 years after the original. It was clearly a fluid set of laws right from the start.

"A well regulated Militia". I believe a militia was originally defined as an orderly civilian armed group that are able to supplement the military in time of need. Much more recently a definition (from dictionary.com) is "a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.". I would suggest that this definition evolved well after the date of the second amendment and so it would be one hell of a push to suggest the original meaning of the 2nd amendment was to keep the federal government in its place. Anyway, not my country and as long as you keep your guns over there I'm not particularly bothered.

Elkadad313 wrote:
God forbid that one day years from now someone is violently killed via toothbrush.


Let's extrapolate the other way. Maybe you should be allowed to privately own nuclear weapons.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:51 pm

Might have happened in .....Australia....by Japanese cult

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/21/scie ... blast.html
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Fri Nov 27, 2020 6:18 am

LOT767301ER wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

On the instant case, the straw purchaser is charged and quite possibly will go to prison while the shooter gets off. Not silence, it’s law and what do YOU propose? I propose no new laws that cannot or will not be enforced.


So you are okay with someone seeking out a gun that should not legally have one but... but... but.. CHICAGO!!! where it happens all the time? And when that person who should not legally have a gun commits a crime with the same gun, just don't prosecute at all? Like when that person guns down two people? Just don't punish him in any way?


I cant help but wonder if you have some sort of developmental/comprehension disorder at this point. Its been going on for years and this latest thread is just another clear cut example. You have 2 pages worth of different users who are pretty much apolitically and sans-emotion telling you what is legal and not legal and yet you are constantly rambling about what someone said when no one has said anything of what you accuse them of. What is your end game when you roll into a thread like this?


I have a degree in broadcasting. Yes, I do have socialization issues and, because of a very abusive childhood, I struggle with the right words. Speaking has a completely different tone (no pun intended) than the written word.

My "end game" is trying to point out the absurdity of the right wing extremist view of "we must enforce all laws" but they get their knickers in a twist when laws are enforced or even brought up. Like the straw purchase that ended in the murder of two people. We must enforce those laws, but we should not because 2A or something off topic because Chicago and all these crazy irrelevant tangents. I believe it was GalaxyFlyer (I don't remember exactly, so forgive me) who said Rittenhouse should not be prosecuted on the straw purchase even though it is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW but gun laws in Chicago or something.

Not to mention these same "all guns all the time" people are the same people who insist that when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, that is a life, but we should not care about life in Chicago or something that I have no idea how it gets from "CELEBRATE LIFE!!!" to "CELEBRATE DEATH!!!". If I downshifted that fast, I would break my neck.

There is so much disconnect on the right, I would think my "rants" would be lucid and coherent.
 
JJJ
Posts: 4202
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:06 am

Elkadad313 wrote:
Classic doublespeak. So, the left is not talking about locking up legal owners outright. Instead, as you state, it will strive to make it illegal to posses firearms. If they are not turned in, THEN the legal owners will be locked up.

I'd like to know how lefties plan to remove illegal firearms from those in the inner city (of course, by then losing those votes may not matter).


If you go far enough to the left there's plenty of guns to be had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... ssociation

As a left of center gun owner myself (on a country other than the US, to boot) doing away with the sweeping generalisation would help.
 
johns624
Posts: 5168
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:04 pm

Virtual737 wrote:

Let's extrapolate the other way. Maybe you should be allowed to privately own nuclear weapons.
The USSC has determined it is an individual right and those aren't individual weapons.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:16 pm

johns624 wrote:
Let's extrapolate the other way. Maybe you should be allowed to privately own nuclear weapons.
The USSC has determined it is an individual right and those aren't individual weapons.[/quote]

...and the toothbrush was?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:49 pm

seb146 wrote:
LOT767301ER wrote:
seb146 wrote:

So you are okay with someone seeking out a gun that should not legally have one but... but... but.. CHICAGO!!! where it happens all the time? And when that person who should not legally have a gun commits a crime with the same gun, just don't prosecute at all? Like when that person guns down two people? Just don't punish him in any way?


I cant help but wonder if you have some sort of developmental/comprehension disorder at this point. Its been going on for years and this latest thread is just another clear cut example. You have 2 pages worth of different users who are pretty much apolitically and sans-emotion telling you what is legal and not legal and yet you are constantly rambling about what someone said when no one has said anything of what you accuse them of. What is your end game when you roll into a thread like this?


I have a degree in broadcasting. Yes, I do have socialization issues and, because of a very abusive childhood, I struggle with the right words. Speaking has a completely different tone (no pun intended) than the written word.

My "end game" is trying to point out the absurdity of the right wing extremist view of "we must enforce all laws" but they get their knickers in a twist when laws are enforced or even brought up. Like the straw purchase that ended in the murder of two people. We must enforce those laws, but we should not because 2A or something off topic because Chicago and all these crazy irrelevant tangents. I believe it was GalaxyFlyer (I don't remember exactly, so forgive me) who said Rittenhouse should not be prosecuted on the straw purchase even though it is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW but gun laws in Chicago or something.

Not to mention these same "all guns all the time" people are the same people who insist that when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, that is a life, but we should not care about life in Chicago or something that I have no idea how it gets from "CELEBRATE LIFE!!!" to "CELEBRATE DEATH!!!". If I downshifted that fast, I would break my neck.

There is so much disconnect on the right, I would think my "rants" would be lucid and coherent.


Where did I or anyone else say Rittenhouse shouldn’t be charged with the straw purchase? The law he broke wasn’t necessarily the purchase as possession of firearm by a minor. Actually, the straw purchaser, Black, has been charged with it. Rittenhouse should be charged with the gun violations, too, but he’s facing a murder trial, so there’s that.

It’s the BLM Left that has the disconnects—cop of either race kills black person, it’s protest and riot time. Black person guns down black child (recently in Chicago), nary a word of protest. Black women have a disproportionate abortion rate—it’s a right!
 
Reinhardt
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:37 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It’s the BLM Left that has the disconnects—cop of either race kills black person, it’s protest and riot time.


You write that as if it's something new. Something that hasn't only just started happening. It's been like it for years, if not decades and nothing has changed. It's quite clear things reached a tipping point.
Riots don't help anyone, agree there. But you see it all around the world in highly charged protests situations. Often with other people involved besides those who have a genuine gripe.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Black person guns down black child (recently in Chicago), nary a word of protest.


BLM (not the politcal wing of it) is about unacceptable violence towards the black community from others because of their colour. Black on black crime is not because of the colour of an individual person. It's part of the bigger topic about why there are more Black people in prison and more violence in Black communites per head of population that others.

It's rather easy to see the difference.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:12 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
LOT767301ER wrote:

I cant help but wonder if you have some sort of developmental/comprehension disorder at this point. Its been going on for years and this latest thread is just another clear cut example. You have 2 pages worth of different users who are pretty much apolitically and sans-emotion telling you what is legal and not legal and yet you are constantly rambling about what someone said when no one has said anything of what you accuse them of. What is your end game when you roll into a thread like this?


I have a degree in broadcasting. Yes, I do have socialization issues and, because of a very abusive childhood, I struggle with the right words. Speaking has a completely different tone (no pun intended) than the written word.

My "end game" is trying to point out the absurdity of the right wing extremist view of "we must enforce all laws" but they get their knickers in a twist when laws are enforced or even brought up. Like the straw purchase that ended in the murder of two people. We must enforce those laws, but we should not because 2A or something off topic because Chicago and all these crazy irrelevant tangents. I believe it was GalaxyFlyer (I don't remember exactly, so forgive me) who said Rittenhouse should not be prosecuted on the straw purchase even though it is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW but gun laws in Chicago or something.

Not to mention these same "all guns all the time" people are the same people who insist that when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, that is a life, but we should not care about life in Chicago or something that I have no idea how it gets from "CELEBRATE LIFE!!!" to "CELEBRATE DEATH!!!". If I downshifted that fast, I would break my neck.

There is so much disconnect on the right, I would think my "rants" would be lucid and coherent.


Where did I or anyone else say Rittenhouse shouldn’t be charged with the straw purchase? The law he broke wasn’t necessarily the purchase as possession of firearm by a minor. Actually, the straw purchaser, Black, has been charged with it. Rittenhouse should be charged with the gun violations, too, but he’s facing a murder trial, so there’s that.


You are simply splitting hairs. Rittenhouse broke the law. If gun laws, like straw purchases, were actually enforced, maybe he would not have murdered two people. But, again, the radical right with their "all guns all the time" demands helped enable him to do this.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It’s the BLM Left that has the disconnects—cop of either race kills black person, it’s protest and riot time. Black person guns down black child (recently in Chicago), nary a word of protest. Black women have a disproportionate abortion rate—it’s a right!


It is mostly about Blacks being treated worse than Whites when it comes to encounters with the police. They have been saying this for decades. Things finally came to a head and that is when the riots started. It has nothing to do with private gun ownership in Chicago. Stop comparing guns in Chicago to racism. Guns in Chicago has nothing to do with racial inequality where police are involved. Besides, I would think staunch 2A people would rejoice that people of Chicago have unfettered access to guns. Or is it that Blacks have unfettered access to guns? I have to throw that out there because it always seems like when Chicago is brought up by 2A people, it is always framed around "Black on Black" crime or "Black on White" crime while a White person with guns is a 2A case.

Maybe give women in general, but, to your point, Black women, access to birth control and teach men of all colors not to rape women and we will see abortion rates plummet.
 
johns624
Posts: 5168
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:24 pm

seb146 wrote:
You are simply splitting hairs. Rittenhouse broke the law. If gun laws, like straw purchases, were actually enforced, maybe he would not have murdered two people. But, again, the radical right with their "all guns all the time" demands helped enable him to do this.
Now you're just making things up. The straw purchase didn't come to light until after he shot the three people.
I've worked in a gun shop. I've detected straw purchases and shut them down. I'm sure some got by me. It's not an exact science, but more like a sixth sense. Gun sales is the one part of retail where "the customer is always right" doesn't apply.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:09 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

I have a degree in broadcasting. Yes, I do have socialization issues and, because of a very abusive childhood, I struggle with the right words. Speaking has a completely different tone (no pun intended) than the written word.

My "end game" is trying to point out the absurdity of the right wing extremist view of "we must enforce all laws" but they get their knickers in a twist when laws are enforced or even brought up. Like the straw purchase that ended in the murder of two people. We must enforce those laws, but we should not because 2A or something off topic because Chicago and all these crazy irrelevant tangents. I believe it was GalaxyFlyer (I don't remember exactly, so forgive me) who said Rittenhouse should not be prosecuted on the straw purchase even though it is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW but gun laws in Chicago or something.

Not to mention these same "all guns all the time" people are the same people who insist that when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, that is a life, but we should not care about life in Chicago or something that I have no idea how it gets from "CELEBRATE LIFE!!!" to "CELEBRATE DEATH!!!". If I downshifted that fast, I would break my neck.

There is so much disconnect on the right, I would think my "rants" would be lucid and coherent.


Where did I or anyone else say Rittenhouse shouldn’t be charged with the straw purchase? The law he broke wasn’t necessarily the purchase as possession of firearm by a minor. Actually, the straw purchaser, Black, has been charged with it. Rittenhouse should be charged with the gun violations, too, but he’s facing a murder trial, so there’s that.


You are simply splitting hairs. Rittenhouse broke the law. If gun laws, like straw purchases, were actually enforced, maybe he would not have murdered two people. But, again, the radical right with their "all guns all the time" demands helped enable him to do this.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It’s the BLM Left that has the disconnects—cop of either race kills black person, it’s protest and riot time. Black person guns down black child (recently in Chicago), nary a word of protest. Black women have a disproportionate abortion rate—it’s a right!


It is mostly about Blacks being treated worse than Whites when it comes to encounters with the police. They have been saying this for decades. Things finally came to a head and that is when the riots started. It has nothing to do with private gun ownership in Chicago. Stop comparing guns in Chicago to racism. Guns in Chicago has nothing to do with racial inequality where police are involved. Besides, I would think staunch 2A people would rejoice that people of Chicago have unfettered access to guns. Or is it that Blacks have unfettered access to guns? I have to throw that out there because it always seems like when Chicago is brought up by 2A people, it is always framed around "Black on Black" crime or "Black on White" crime while a White person with guns is a 2A case.

Maybe give women in general, but, to your point, Black women, access to birth control and teach men of all colors not to rape women and we will see abortion rates plummet.


How do you propose the police enforce gun laws PRIOR to the illegal act? Laws are just signs saying don’t do this, there’s few laws that can be enforced PRIOR to the felony.

Are black women really incapable in today’s world of access to birth control? Are rapes a major source of pregnancies? You’re letting emotion drive the argument.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-a ... ed-states/
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:30 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Where did I or anyone else say Rittenhouse shouldn’t be charged with the straw purchase? The law he broke wasn’t necessarily the purchase as possession of firearm by a minor. Actually, the straw purchaser, Black, has been charged with it. Rittenhouse should be charged with the gun violations, too, but he’s facing a murder trial, so there’s that.


You are simply splitting hairs. Rittenhouse broke the law. If gun laws, like straw purchases, were actually enforced, maybe he would not have murdered two people. But, again, the radical right with their "all guns all the time" demands helped enable him to do this.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It’s the BLM Left that has the disconnects—cop of either race kills black person, it’s protest and riot time. Black person guns down black child (recently in Chicago), nary a word of protest. Black women have a disproportionate abortion rate—it’s a right!


It is mostly about Blacks being treated worse than Whites when it comes to encounters with the police. They have been saying this for decades. Things finally came to a head and that is when the riots started. It has nothing to do with private gun ownership in Chicago. Stop comparing guns in Chicago to racism. Guns in Chicago has nothing to do with racial inequality where police are involved. Besides, I would think staunch 2A people would rejoice that people of Chicago have unfettered access to guns. Or is it that Blacks have unfettered access to guns? I have to throw that out there because it always seems like when Chicago is brought up by 2A people, it is always framed around "Black on Black" crime or "Black on White" crime while a White person with guns is a 2A case.

Maybe give women in general, but, to your point, Black women, access to birth control and teach men of all colors not to rape women and we will see abortion rates plummet.


How do you propose the police enforce gun laws PRIOR to the illegal act? Laws are just signs saying don’t do this, there’s few laws that can be enforced PRIOR to the felony.

Are black women really incapable in today’s world of access to birth control? Are rapes a major source of pregnancies? You’re letting emotion drive the argument.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-a ... ed-states/


I am not going to continue dragging the thread off topic.

As far as guns, yes, police and states can enforce laws. Like straw purchases. That would cut down in illegal acts. 2A people want current laws enforced. So, there is one law that can be enforced.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:23 pm

Any suggestions on how?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:55 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Any suggestions on how?


Literally any and all suggestions are met with "BUT.. BUT.. BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" and nothing else. So, no. We are not allowed to do anything. Not a damn thing. EVERY suggestion is met with "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" We can not stop kids from being gunned down sitting in schools, we can not stop adults being gunned down in movie theaters, we must stop LEGAL protesters exercising their First Amendment rights but let's not even hint at doing anything when it comes to guns because 2A is the only thing that matters for some reason.

We could demand and enforce straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could report all internet and newspaper straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand state and local authorities actually do their job and follow up on straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand law enforcement enforce the laws but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.

So sayeth the party of "every life is sacred"
 
User avatar
Veigar
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:31 am

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Any suggestions on how?


Literally any and all suggestions are met with "BUT.. BUT.. BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" and nothing else. So, no. We are not allowed to do anything. Not a damn thing. EVERY suggestion is met with "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" We can not stop kids from being gunned down sitting in schools, we can not stop adults being gunned down in movie theaters, we must stop LEGAL protesters exercising their First Amendment rights but let's not even hint at doing anything when it comes to guns because 2A is the only thing that matters for some reason.

We could demand and enforce straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could report all internet and newspaper straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand state and local authorities actually do their job and follow up on straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand law enforcement enforce the laws but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.

So sayeth the party of "every life is sacred"


Why are you playing up those mass shootings as if they are not extremely rare? When I was a kid in school I didn't get gunned down
 
N583JB
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:28 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Any suggestions on how?


Literally any and all suggestions are met with "BUT.. BUT.. BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" and nothing else. So, no. We are not allowed to do anything. Not a damn thing. EVERY suggestion is met with "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" We can not stop kids from being gunned down sitting in schools, we can not stop adults being gunned down in movie theaters, we must stop LEGAL protesters exercising their First Amendment rights but let's not even hint at doing anything when it comes to guns because 2A is the only thing that matters for some reason.

We could demand and enforce straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could report all internet and newspaper straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand state and local authorities actually do their job and follow up on straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand law enforcement enforce the laws but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.

So sayeth the party of "every life is sacred"


You didn't answer the question.

How would you personally propose to stop straw purchases?
 
johns624
Posts: 5168
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:46 pm

He hasn't a clue.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:58 pm

Veigar wrote:

Why are you playing up those mass shootings as if they are not extremely rare? When I was a kid in school I didn't get gunned down


Did I really just read that?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:44 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Any suggestions on how?


Literally any and all suggestions are met with "BUT.. BUT.. BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" and nothing else. So, no. We are not allowed to do anything. Not a damn thing. EVERY suggestion is met with "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" We can not stop kids from being gunned down sitting in schools, we can not stop adults being gunned down in movie theaters, we must stop LEGAL protesters exercising their First Amendment rights but let's not even hint at doing anything when it comes to guns because 2A is the only thing that matters for some reason.

We could demand and enforce straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could report all internet and newspaper straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand state and local authorities actually do their job and follow up on straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand law enforcement enforce the laws but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.

So sayeth the party of "every life is sacred"


I might have missed it, but is there a coherent recommendation in there? Maybe every purchase should be attended by a Federal police officer.
 
N583JB
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Any suggestions on how?


Literally any and all suggestions are met with "BUT.. BUT.. BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" and nothing else. So, no. We are not allowed to do anything. Not a damn thing. EVERY suggestion is met with "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" We can not stop kids from being gunned down sitting in schools, we can not stop adults being gunned down in movie theaters, we must stop LEGAL protesters exercising their First Amendment rights but let's not even hint at doing anything when it comes to guns because 2A is the only thing that matters for some reason.

We could demand and enforce straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could report all internet and newspaper straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand state and local authorities actually do their job and follow up on straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand law enforcement enforce the laws but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.

So sayeth the party of "every life is sacred"


I might have missed it, but is there a coherent recommendation in there? Maybe every purchase should be attended by a Federal police officer.


Maybe Seb thinks that people who do straw purchases wear straw hats, or something. On a related note, perhaps we should get car dealers to stop selling cars to people who will crash in the future.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:31 pm

Or, this being A.net, stop rich people from buying private jets because their pilots might crash them. That’s a straw purchase, too. Murder is against the law, by whatever device, perhaps we need to enforce the homicide laws to prevent murders.
 
johns624
Posts: 5168
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:04 pm

What's amazing is that I've had high capacity firearms for over 30 years and none have ever done anything illegal. I was once good enough with an AR15 to shoot on the 16 place (out of 54) at Camp Perry, even beating some military teams. Yet, I have never felt the need or pull to do something illegal with them. Maybe it's the person, not the tool? PS- I was born and raised in a bad section of Detroit (not the suburbs). I had two parents but my dad was an alcoholic who wasn't very "fatherly". So a bad upbringing can't have anything to do with it, either. Maybe it's personal choice?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:22 pm

Veigar wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Any suggestions on how?


Literally any and all suggestions are met with "BUT.. BUT.. BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" and nothing else. So, no. We are not allowed to do anything. Not a damn thing. EVERY suggestion is met with "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!!" We can not stop kids from being gunned down sitting in schools, we can not stop adults being gunned down in movie theaters, we must stop LEGAL protesters exercising their First Amendment rights but let's not even hint at doing anything when it comes to guns because 2A is the only thing that matters for some reason.

We could demand and enforce straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could report all internet and newspaper straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand state and local authorities actually do their job and follow up on straw purchases but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.
We could demand law enforcement enforce the laws but "BUT... BUT... BUT... MY RIGHTS!!!!" is more important than life.

So sayeth the party of "every life is sacred"


Why are you playing up those mass shootings as if they are not extremely rare? When I was a kid in school I didn't get gunned down


I didn't either. Everyone kept their guns at home and didn't feel the need to own as many as they could, either. Now, the answer is "shoot them all because my 2A rights" or something similar. IMO, we had much less gun violence before the extremist right started whining about "them liburlz iz takin arr gunz!!" with zero proof. The worst part is people actually believe it!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:29 pm

You might familiarize your self with actual data. Murder rates have been falling even as gun permits and “shall issue” laws have expanded. Gun violence was much worse 30-40 years ago.

https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/ ... 083892.pdf
 
TSS
Posts: 3738
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:12 pm

Some might find this primer on cognitive dissonance and how to counter it helpful:

How To Argue With Someone Who Won’t Listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVF0ojfhSrE
 
johns624
Posts: 5168
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:25 pm

seb146 wrote:
Everyone kept their guns at home and didn't feel the need to own as many as they could, either. Now, the answer is "shoot them all because my 2A rights" or something similar. IMO, we had much less gun violence before the extremist right started whining about "them liburlz iz takin arr gunz!!" with zero proof. The worst part is people actually believe it!
You may want to look into statistics on how many legal carriers of weapons commit crimes with them. Of course, the answer wouldn't fit your agenda.
 
LabQuest
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:31 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:27 pm

Concealed carry holding democrat voter here. We don't need new laws we need to enforce the ones we have.

I feel like a lot of people here who constantly talk about "Gun nuts" have never actually spent a Saturday at a range. They're the most laid back, safe, professional shooters I know. They just happen to have a lot of guns.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 9179
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:36 am

I’d go to one of those Michigan “gun nut” protests without hesitation. I wouldn’t think of walking with or without my 1911 in vast swaths of NYC, Chicago, MSP, ATL.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Political Position (Guns)

Mon Nov 30, 2020 5:09 am

johns624 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Everyone kept their guns at home and didn't feel the need to own as many as they could, either. Now, the answer is "shoot them all because my 2A rights" or something similar. IMO, we had much less gun violence before the extremist right started whining about "them liburlz iz takin arr gunz!!" with zero proof. The worst part is people actually believe it!
You may want to look into statistics on how many legal carriers of weapons commit crimes with them. Of course, the answer wouldn't fit your agenda.


But we can not do anything about any gun carriers at all ever according to 2A people. This is my point. We have laws in place and we should enforce them. But, we can not because that enfringes on the Second Amendment for some reason. Which is why "private sales" A. K. A. STRAW PURCHASES are not regulated and not even looked into which is why a 17 year old MAN was able to buy a gun and go across state lines and murder two people. Red flags pop up everywhere but we can't do anything about them because 2A rights. If we would enforce laws but we can't because the last four words are more important than life itself.

We are just going to ignore the child on child violence and the "but I thought it was empty" murders because that would not fit your agenda.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Newark727 and 37 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos