Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:45 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
A war that monsters like you will lose.
Annoyed wouldn't lose. Because he wouldn't show up for the war.

He's internet tough. If the government ever did decide to take his guns, he'd hand them over.

Then after he got home, washed his face, and changed his underwear, he'd go online and brag about how he faced down the entire army. And then he had sex with a woman! And then he scored the winning touchdown and home run - in the same game! And then he fought a lion and karate chopped it to death! And then President Trump came to his house and shook his hand and said they were best friends! And then when his mom told him to take the garbage out, he told her no, he'll do it tomorrow! Because he's always winning!
  #152  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:51 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
This argument is tiresome. Trump did not come in second place. This is exactly akin to saying that Football Team A did better in every measurable category against Team B except for the only one that matters, the score. Trump ran an election to get himself elected based on the system that was in place. Not only did he beat Cruz, Carson, et. al, he also beat Hillary in the only measurement that matters. No one cares that you think the popular vote matters. The laws of this country do not care one whit about that. He won in the only category that matters.
Did Donald Trump design the Electoral College? Sure, Trump benefited from it but that doesn't mean he did it.

That's my point. Trump has been handed his successes at every step in his life.
  #153  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:10 PM
Folacin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Did Donald Trump design the Electoral College? Sure, Trump benefited from it but that doesn't mean he did it.

That's my point. Trump has been handed his successes at every step in his life.
He didn't design it, but he used it to win.

It occurs to me that (per my shaky memory of an article somewhere) that Hillary did the same sort of thing in the 2008 race for the nomination. IIRC, Obama looked at the rules in place and used them to capture delegates, where Hillary just sort of figured that the existing norms/whatever would carry her to victory.

Possibly parallels to her alleged failure to campaign enough in WI and PA (and too many visits to actual locks like California), leading to her losing those states and the election.
  #154  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:26 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Did Donald Trump design the Electoral College? Sure, Trump benefited from it but that doesn't mean he did it.

That's my point. Trump has been handed his successes at every step in his life.
What does it matter who designed the rules of the contest? The contest was in place, all participants agreed to the terms of the contest, and at the end, Trump won. If you disagree with that you are living in a fantasy world and rationalizing an outcome you don't like.

Please elaborate on how he was handed the presidency. Seriously. I'd like to know how that happened. Are you saying he didn't campaign, go to debates, hold rallies, etc.? Are you saying he was lazily sitting in Trump tower, doing absolutely nothing, and the republicans, against his own desires, came to him in November and said, "We know you did no work at all to get elected, but we elected you anyway?"

But let's go with your theory, that it was handed to him. It was thrust upon him and it was not of his doing. Others have said he loathes the job. So why is he keeping it? He didn't want it and clearly isn't gaining anything from it (y'know, except the millions he is taking from the tax payers and the attention he craves), according to you. He can't be gaining anything from it because gaining would imply a sort of winning, which you say he isn't doing.

Trump took advantage of a particular mentality and circumstance that existed in the country and continues to exist, working in and around the system to keep himself in power. Keep hoping his buffoonery and incompetence will catch up to him and come 2020 you'll once again be making stupid rationalizations about who really won.
  #155  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:49 PM
Skypist's Avatar
Skypist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 489
Why are posters wasting time arguing with someone who basically says they would vote for the destruction of mankind rather than vote for a Democrat? There is nothing positive to come out of such an argument. It’s not teaching lurkers anything, it’s not changing the troll’s behavior, it’s not sharpening your debate skills. Nothing is being accomplished except to derail threads and impede anyone who was actually trying to talk about the subject from being able to do so.
  #156  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:52 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,380
I took the "vote for Satan" comment as he'd rather vote for a phony character rather than support a Democrat.
  #157  
Old 09-13-2019, 05:32 PM
AWB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
[Trump]'s gone further in life than 99.999% of people.
I would've gone pretty far too, if my father had loaned me $1,000,000.
  #158  
Old 09-13-2019, 05:44 PM
River Hippie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N.E. Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,492
Might be more like 413M NYT article, may be paywalled.
  #159  
Old 09-13-2019, 05:48 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
What does it matter who designed the rules of the contest? The contest was in place, all participants agreed to the terms of the contest, and at the end, Trump won. If you disagree with that you are living in a fantasy world and rationalizing an outcome you don't like.

Please elaborate on how he was handed the presidency. Seriously. I'd like to know how that happened. Are you saying he didn't campaign, go to debates, hold rallies, etc.? Are you saying he was lazily sitting in Trump tower, doing absolutely nothing, and the republicans, against his own desires, came to him in November and said, "We know you did no work at all to get elected, but we elected you anyway?"

But let's go with your theory, that it was handed to him. It was thrust upon him and it was not of his doing. Others have said he loathes the job. So why is he keeping it? He didn't want it and clearly isn't gaining anything from it (y'know, except the millions he is taking from the tax payers and the attention he craves), according to you. He can't be gaining anything from it because gaining would imply a sort of winning, which you say he isn't doing.

Trump took advantage of a particular mentality and circumstance that existed in the country and continues to exist, working in and around the system to keep himself in power. Keep hoping his buffoonery and incompetence will catch up to him and come 2020 you'll once again be making stupid rationalizations about who really won.
I'm saying the biggest thing he had to do was show up.

Suppose I worked in a store and I knew they were having a secret promotion where they were planning on giving a ten thousand dollar prize to the one hundredth customer to enter the store next Saturday. And you're my buddy so I called you and told you "Hey, be at the store this Saturday and stand in the parking lot and count customers. When you get to ninety-nine, be the next guy to come inside." You do this and win ten thousand dollars.

Would you say that you had somehow earned that ten thousand dollars by deciding to not stay home in bed? That your decision to show up and count to a hundred somehow proved that you were more skilled than everyone else?

Last edited by Little Nemo; 09-13-2019 at 05:49 PM.
  #160  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:04 PM
Kamino Neko's Avatar
Kamino Neko is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alternate 230
Posts: 15,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Would you say that you had somehow earned that ten thousand dollars by deciding to not stay home in bed? That your decision to show up and count to a hundred somehow proved that you were more skilled than everyone else?
And Trump didn't even have to do that.

Trump was 'go to the store and stand around until I tell you to go in'.
  #161  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:15 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
I took the "vote for Satan" comment as he'd rather vote for a phony character rather than support a Democrat.
I took from it that he's openly admitting to being evil.

And when he then claimed that he prefers Satan because he considered gun-grabbing democrats to be tyrants, I took from that that he's spectacularly stupid. What, the brainless tool thinks that Satan solicits his electorate's opinions?
  #162  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:29 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm saying the biggest thing he had to do was show up.

Suppose I worked in a store and I knew they were having a secret promotion where they were planning on giving a ten thousand dollar prize to the one hundredth customer to enter the store next Saturday. And you're my buddy so I called you and told you "Hey, be at the store this Saturday and stand in the parking lot and count customers. When you get to ninety-nine, be the next guy to come inside." You do this and win ten thousand dollars.

Would you say that you had somehow earned that ten thousand dollars by deciding to not stay home in bed? That your decision to show up and count to a hundred somehow proved that you were more skilled than everyone else?
Walk me through your analogy. Who is Trump's buddy with the inside information? Why did this buddy pick Trump to stand there? The buddy could have picked Santorum, Cruz, and a host of others. Why Trump? What did Obama do that Trump didn't?

It defies logic that he did nothing and got the presidency when there were dozens of others who did almost everything and still couldn't get there. Trump did things, even if you don't want to acknowledge that. He got himself attention, sold a message enough other people wanted to hear, and got elected.
  #163  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:40 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,614
The point about the popular vote is simply that Trump did not win with a majority of the voting public. Yes, the win was handed to him by the system in place, but that does not change the fact that the "will of the people" to the tune of millions is for the other candidate.
  #164  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:49 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,494
All that trump did was to be an overt racist and hateful piece of shit.

The republican party has been grooming their electorate to be racist pieces of shit for decades (see: southern strategy), all as part of polarizing their electorate. Quite simply they discovered that evil shits are motivated, and so by aligning yourself against all that is good, you can scoop up various kinds of racists, bigots, mysogynists, xenophobes, cowards, and so on by painting decent people as the enemy, and themselves as being your friend. All they had to do is abandon all decency, and given how overtly well appealing to the toilet had been at keeping them relevant despite tides turning against them, discarding decency was an easy sell.

The thing is, though, that prior to Trump they were all career politicians, and remembered the past years when even while you were courting the nazis, you couldn't publicly court the nazis, because you'd be pilloried by the less-shitty parts of your electorate. They felt they had to toe the line, be publicly decentish while still throwing bones to the deplorables.

At the same time, Russia had been pumping the interwebs full of divisive propaganda intended to divide the populace and erode the stability of the country, with the deliberate aim of bolstering the human shitstains and encouraging them to further depravity.

This meant that when Trump strolled in with no decency at all, they were at a sudden disadvantage - he was publicly being the worthless, idiotic shitstain that none of them could bring themselves to be. By being a complete shitpile he essentially stole the electorate the the less deranged republicans had been cultivating for themselves, leaving them caught with their pants down. It's not that Trump did anything clever, mind you, he just was willing to dive into the sewer that the republicans had been merely wading in. And by all evidence he accomplished this not through a manipulative act, but because he just really is that horrible.
  #165  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:59 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,552
That totally fucking rocks! Thanks for posting it, robby!
  #166  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:09 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Walk me through your analogy. Who is Trump's buddy with the inside information? Why did this buddy pick Trump to stand there? The buddy could have picked Santorum, Cruz, and a host of others. Why Trump? What did Obama do that Trump didn't?

It defies logic that he did nothing and got the presidency when there were dozens of others who did almost everything and still couldn't get there. Trump did things, even if you don't want to acknowledge that. He got himself attention, sold a message enough other people wanted to hear, and got elected.
It's pretty clear by now that you don't want to see it. So keep on thinking that Donald Trump is a mastermind. And every time he screws up, just tell yourself he's playing four-dimensional chess.
  #167  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:08 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Cite, though? What exactly is the phrase "take our guns" being used to mean in this context?

If Beto or any other politician is using it to mean "summarily taking away all legally-owned guns from everybody", that's flat-out unconstitutional as the 2nd Amendment currently stands, and the vast majority of Americans (including me) would oppose it. It's not going to happen, realistically speaking, and no politician with any hope of actually being elected would seriously propose it.

If, on the other hand, it just means "slightly increase restrictions on the types of guns that can be owned or eligibility for owning a gun", that's not necessarily unreasonable or unconstitutional. If elected legislators have the support of their constituencies for enacting such measures, well, that's part of the principle of majority rule in a republic. Gun owners should recognize and accept the ups and downs of (legal and constitutional) majority rule, rather than throwing tantrums about alleged "tyranny" any time a law is passed that they don't like.


If gun owners are willing to make the enactment of some additional constitutional and legal restrictions on gun ownership an excuse for literally starting a war, that's on them, not on the politicians or voters supporting such restrictions.

If you're saying "Any attempt to make gun ownership even slightly more restricted in any way is an intolerable act of oppression against gun owners, and I intend to respond to any such restrictions, however legally and constitutionally enacted, with armed and violent resistance", then your political opponents are not the ones looking tyrannical and bloodthirsty here.

If you are responding to proposed legal and constitutional restrictions on gun ownership with raging aggressive rhetoric about how you'll refuse to comply with any such restrictions even if it means starting a god-damned war or whatever, I can see how the FBI would consider it reasonable to red-flag you.

On the other hand, if you make a reasonable case why you think a particular proposed legal and constitutional restriction on gun ownership would be a bad idea, while at the same time as a law-abiding rational gun owner you acknowledge you need to comply with legal and constitutional restrictions even if you don't like them, then you'll be more likely to get moderate gun-ownership supporters like me defending your position.

But if you're simply raging that you're going to go to war if anybody does anything that could be remotely interpreted as "taking your guns" in any way, no matter how legally and constitutionally, then you come across as paranoid and dangerous. I'm not gonna defend that.
https://twitter.com/betoorourke/stat...178716672?s=21

https://twitter.com/repswalwell/stat...687721989?s=21

Just google the phrase and look for your self.

We have a second amendment. And we have a process for modifying the amendments. The left doesn’t give a fuck about the constitution, and wants a confrontation.

The matter is simple. Change the amendment it self, or leave it the fuck alone.

You can add your own thoughts and what you feel is right, but that’s doesn't change the fact that this is wrong, unconstitutional, dangerous, and citizens have every right to fight it.

It would, without a doubt, cause thousands of deaths and hundreds of Waco’s and Ruby Ridges, and a real deal constitutional crisis.

Several of your party leaders are in the same camp as Beto.
  #168  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:21 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Annoyed wouldn't lose. Because he wouldn't show up for the war.

He's internet tough. If the government ever did decide to take his guns, he'd hand them over.

Then after he got home, washed his face, and changed his underwear, he'd go online and brag about how he faced down the entire army. And then he had sex with a woman! And then he scored the winning touchdown and home run - in the same game! And then he fought a lion and karate chopped it to death! And then President Trump came to his house and shook his hand and said they were best friends! And then when his mom told him to take the garbage out, he told her no, he'll do it tomorrow! Because he's always winning!
What I would or wouldn’t do doesnt matter.

It’s what would happen, even if I died tomorrow.

I’m sure that there are many on here that would just love to watch some of the feds gunfight citizens, but I wouldn’t.
  #169  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:34 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
We have a second amendment. And we have a process for modifying the amendments. The left doesn’t give a fuck about the constitution, and wants a confrontation.

The matter is simple. Change the amendment it self, or leave it the fuck alone.

You can add your own thoughts and what you feel is right, but that’s doesn't change the fact that this is wrong, unconstitutional, dangerous, and citizens have every right to fight it.

It would, without a doubt, cause thousands of deaths and hundreds of Waco’s and Ruby Ridges, and a real deal constitutional crisis.
The present interpretation of the Second Amendment is a recent thing pushed into law thanks to NRA money, and can be changed back to what it used to be without changing the amendment.

And if right wingers are so attached to their guns they are willing to murder for them, that's just an indication that it's a good idea those guns be removed. Right wingers are the primary source of terrorism in the US.
  #170  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:54 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
The present interpretation of the Second Amendment is a recent thing pushed into law thanks to NRA money, and can be changed back to what it used to be without changing the amendment.

And if right wingers are so attached to their guns they are willing to murder for them, that's just an indication that it's a good idea those guns be removed. Right wingers are the primary source of terrorism in the US.
All of the first paragraph is false, ignores historical context and intent, ignores the federalist papers, and is revisionist horseshit.
  #171  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:57 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
And if right wingers are so attached to their guns they are willing to murder for them, that's just an indication that it's a good idea those guns be removed. Right wingers are the primary source of terrorism in the US.
“Murder” he says.

And if people refuse to give them up?

They’ll be murdered by the government.
  #172  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:20 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,928
"We're going to take your AR-15" in the sense of "We're going to pass laws making ownership of AR-15s illegal" is not necessarily an unconstitutional infringement of Second Amendment rights. It might be, but that's for the courts to decide, if a legislature does end up passing such a law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed
We have a second amendment. And we have a process for modifying the amendments. [...]

The matter is simple. Change the amendment it self, or leave it the fuck alone.
You seem to think that the existence of the Second Amendment means that placing any type of legal restriction on owning any type of gun is unconstitutional and can only be justified by formally changing the Constitution.

That's simply not true. Gun ownership can to some extent be legally regulated without infringing the underlying right "to keep and bear arms". Where and how far such regulation properly extends is a matter for the courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed
You can add your own thoughts and what you feel is right, but that’s doesn't change the fact that this is wrong, unconstitutional, dangerous, and citizens have every right to fight it.
Those aren't "facts". Whether outright banning of all AR-15s (which I personally am not convinced would be a good idea, btw) is morally wrong is a matter of opinion. Whether outright banning of all AR-15s is unconstitutional is, as I said, a matter for the courts. Whether outright banning of all AR-15s is dangerous depends largely on whether hitherto law-abiding gun owners decide they're entitled to just ignore a law they don't happen to like, and resort to violent crime in response to attempts to enforce that law.

Whether "citizens have every right to fight" a law banning all AR-15s depends on what you mean by "fight". Certainly you have every right to fight such a law by expressing your disagreement with it, by encouraging your representatives to vote against it (but leaving out the death threats plz, thx), and by using all forms of legal protest and debate to change people's minds about supporting such a law.

But citizens aren't entitled to "fight" such a law by turning into violent terrorist groups bloodily resisting its enforcement. I have no sympathy with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed
It would, without a doubt, cause thousands of deaths and hundreds of Waco’s and Ruby Ridges, and a real deal constitutional crisis.
That sort of implied threat of violence is not helping your case one little bit. If American gun owners are really crazy enough to respond to the passage of laws banning one high-profile type of firearm (however ill-considered or ineffective such a law might be) with massive unlawful violence causing "thousands of deaths" in "hundreds" of terroristic uprisings, then they're not responsible enough to be trusted with a water pistol.

Wild-eyed threats about how destructively dangerous you're going to become if legislators respond to popular majority opinion about firearm danger by lawfully enacting legislation banning one particular type of firearm does not make your dissent from that popular opinion look more reasonable. It just makes you look like a belligerent lunatic who needs to be red-flagged into a padded cell ASAP to avoid danger to himself and others.


TL;DR: Why on earth are you encouraging people to fear gun owners as irresponsible, lawless and dangerous by ranting and raving about how irresponsible, lawless and dangerous you're going to be if a popular majority decides to pass a law you don't like? You are simply feeding into stereotypes of gun owners as irrational untrustworthy nuts with no fundamental respect for the rule of law.
  #173  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:32 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
All of the first paragraph is false, ignores historical context and intent, ignores the federalist papers, and is revisionist horseshit.
So you're on board with the second paragraph of the post you quoted, then?
  #174  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:35 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It's pretty clear by now that you don't want to see it. So keep on thinking that Donald Trump is a mastermind. And every time he screws up, just tell yourself he's playing four-dimensional chess.
Ah yes... the refuge of someone who clearly has no clue how to apply his own analogy. "I'd tell you, but you wouldn't understand."

Idiot. I don't think Trump is playing four dimensional chess. Never have. He couldn't have created the situation he took advantage of, but he was smart enough to take advantage of the situation. There is a difference.

If you want to keep telling yourself he is a complete idiot that is going to screw himself out of the presidency, knock yourself out if it makes you feel better. This is exactly why he has a chance to win again. No one gave him any chance to win the first time, yet he did. So deny he is capable of doing it again and we are all in huge trouble.
  #175  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:45 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
We have a second amendment. And we have a process for modifying the amendments. The left doesn’t give a fuck about the constitution, and wants a confrontation.

That's two lies in one statement. The Left absolutely does care about the constitution. That's why they talk about it and talk about following it, something your hero, Trump, is unable to do because he is completely unaware of what's in the constitution. And the only confrontation the Left wants is thre one at the ballot box. Agan, something the Rght is fairly adverse to, given both their proven stance on unconstitutional restrictions on voting and their acceptance of foreign meddling in the electoral process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
You can add your own thoughts and what you feel is right, but that’s doesn't change the fact that this is wrong, unconstitutional, dangerous, and citizens have every right to fight it.

Yet, when the Left points out Trump's unconstitutional stunts and goes to court over his writing out an executive order to illegally override the constitution, the Right freaks out. Take a wild guess what "IOKWARDI" means.

Last edited by Monty; 09-13-2019 at 10:49 PM.
  #176  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:11 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
TL;DR: Why on earth are you encouraging people to fear gun owners as irresponsible, lawless and dangerous by ranting and raving about how irresponsible, lawless and dangerous you're going to be if a popular majority decides to pass a law you don't like?
It's simple; the right wing is and has always been fundamentally terroristic. They want everyone else on the planet to be terrified into obedience, or dead.
  #177  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:23 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamino Neko View Post
And Trump didn't even have to do that.

Trump was 'go to the store and stand around until I tell you to go in'.

And make sure you have picture ID!
  #178  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:17 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
"We're going to take your AR-15" in the sense of "We're going to pass laws making ownership of AR-15s illegal" is not necessarily an unconstitutional infringement of Second Amendment rights. It might be, but that's for the courts to decide, if a legislature does end up passing such a law.


You seem to think that the existence of the Second Amendment means that placing any type of legal restriction on owning any type of gun is unconstitutional and can only be justified by formally changing the Constitution.

That's simply not true. Gun ownership can to some extent be legally regulated without infringing the underlying right "to keep and bear arms". Where and how far such regulation properly extends is a matter for the courts.


Those aren't "facts". Whether outright banning of all AR-15s (which I personally am not convinced would be a good idea, btw) is morally wrong is a matter of opinion. Whether outright banning of all AR-15s is unconstitutional is, as I said, a matter for the courts. Whether outright banning of all AR-15s is dangerous depends largely on whether hitherto law-abiding gun owners decide they're entitled to just ignore a law they don't happen to like, and resort to violent crime in response to attempts to enforce that law.

Whether "citizens have every right to fight" a law banning all AR-15s depends on what you mean by "fight". Certainly you have every right to fight such a law by expressing your disagreement with it, by encouraging your representatives to vote against it (but leaving out the death threats plz, thx), and by using all forms of legal protest and debate to change people's minds about supporting such a law.

But citizens aren't entitled to "fight" such a law by turning into violent terrorist groups bloodily resisting its enforcement. I have no sympathy with that.


That sort of implied threat of violence is not helping your case one little bit. If American gun owners are really crazy enough to respond to the passage of laws banning one high-profile type of firearm (however ill-considered or ineffective such a law might be) with massive unlawful violence causing "thousands of deaths" in "hundreds" of terroristic uprisings, then they're not responsible enough to be trusted with a water pistol.

Wild-eyed threats about how destructively dangerous you're going to become if legislators respond to popular majority opinion about firearm danger by lawfully enacting legislation banning one particular type of firearm does not make your dissent from that popular opinion look more reasonable. It just makes you look like a belligerent lunatic who needs to be red-flagged into a padded cell ASAP to avoid danger to himself and others.


TL;DR: Why on earth are you encouraging people to fear gun owners as irresponsible, lawless and dangerous by ranting and raving about how irresponsible, lawless and dangerous you're going to be if a popular majority decides to pass a law you don't like? You are simply feeding into stereotypes of gun owners as irrational untrustworthy nuts with no fundamental respect for the rule of law.
Funny, Beto states “Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15’s and AK-47’s” and you go from that to some weird, watered down, personal interpretation of what that means, ignoring Swalwells comment altogether.

This is what it means: “We’re going to take your rifles, by force if need be, if you resist we are going to red flag you and publicly label you a domestic terrorist”.

I am not threatening anyone, I’m stating a fact. If the left starts to go and overnight make felons out of millions of its own citizens, confiscating their weapons, and labeling them terrorists, all of which are mostly good, law abiding people, there would be a disaster. There’s no stopping it, there’s no way around it.

Millions of people believe, deeper than any other position, that those rifles are the last stand. Would they all fight? Of course not, but thousands probably would.

This is how twisted the left is. They will go after their own people, by force if they could, to get what they want.

You guys think Trump is the divider in chief mini hitler, but your own party is doing a damn fine job of alienating millions of its own citizens on their own.
  #179  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:27 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
It's simple; the right wing is and has always been fundamentally terroristic. They want everyone else on the planet to be terrified into obedience, or dead.
Always good for a chuckle watching hardcore lefties opine on what they think the right is all about.

It’s funny because leftwing politics has killed more people on planet earth than any other, continuing to do so to this very day, yet the big bad right wing just wants our constitutionally protected rights to be left alone.

Time and time again throughout history leftwing politics have disarmed, starved, murdered, stolen, and crippled continents, and even after ALL that, they STILL think everyone else is the baddie.
  #180  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:28 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Funny, Beto states “Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15’s and AK-47’s” and you go from that to some weird, watered down, personal interpretation of what that means, ignoring Swalwells comment altogether.

This is what it means: “We’re going to take your rifles, by force if need be, if you resist we are going to red flag you and publicly label you a domestic terrorist”.

I am not threatening anyone, I’m stating a fact. If the left starts to go and overnight make felons out of millions of its own citizens, confiscating their weapons, and labeling them terrorists, all of which are mostly good, law abiding people, there would be a disaster. There’s no stopping it, there’s no way around it.
Again, most Republicans do think that there should be things like red flag laws. Are they left wing?
  #181  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:30 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post

Millions of people believe, deeper than any other position, that those rifles are the last stand. Would they all fight? Of course not, but thousands probably would.

This is how twisted the left is. They will go after their own people, by force if they could, to get what they want.

You guys think Trump is the divider in chief mini hitler, but your own party is doing a damn fine job of alienating millions of its own citizens on their own.
Yes, "the left" is so "twisted" that they're proposing exactly the kind of gun buy-back program that's been successful all over the world, most recently in Australia and New Zealand but common all over -- even in Canada where it's been much less publicized but occurring on regional levels (for example, Toronto). Just because you're a brain-dead fucking moron with violent inclinations doesn't mean we have to abandon civilized gun control and the rule of law. If your fellow citizens are really as mindless and violent as you claim that sounds to me like a damn good reason for them NOT to have guns. Certainly I see a damn good reason for YOU not to have one, and you probably own a fucking arsenal.
  #182  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:41 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Always good for a chuckle watching hardcore lefties opine on what they think the right is all about.

It’s funny because leftwing politics has killed more people on planet earth than any other, continuing to do so to this very day, yet the big bad right wing just wants our constitutionally protected rights to be left alone.

Time and time again throughout history leftwing politics have disarmed, starved, murdered, stolen, and crippled continents, and even after ALL that, they STILL think everyone else is the baddie.
"Drawing conclusions about liberals by studying communists is not a very sound practice."

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/...communism.html
  #183  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:42 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Always good for a chuckle watching hardcore lefties opine on what they think the right is all about.

It’s funny because leftwing politics has killed more people on planet earth than any other, continuing to do so to this very day, yet the big bad right wing just wants our constitutionally protected rights to be left alone.
I'm amused that you think I'm a "hardcore left winger"; you've probably never even talked to one.

The right wing is all about malice, greed and tyranny, and has killed huge numbers of people. And it is in the process of destroying civilization, which will kill billions at the very least.

The right isn't interested in being left alone, and it opposes the existence of civil rights. The right exists to support tyranny and bigotry, rape and torture and murder, genocide, irrationality, ignorance, lies and cruelty. It is the nearest thing to pure evil that has ever existed, completely lacking in redeeming qualities of any kind.

The ultimate goal of a right winger is to be the last fanatic left alive on a world of corpses. They will willingly die so long as they can watch everyone else die first, as painfully as possible.
  #184  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:54 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Yes, "the left" is so "twisted" that they're proposing exactly the kind of gun buy-back program that's been successful all over the world, most recently in Australia and New Zealand but common all over -- even in Canada where it's been much less publicized but occurring on regional levels (for example, Toronto). Just because you're a brain-dead fucking moron with violent inclinations doesn't mean we have to abandon civilized gun control and the rule of law. If your fellow citizens are really as mindless and violent as you claim that sounds to me like a damn good reason for them NOT to have guns. Certainly I see a damn good reason for YOU not to have one, and you probably own a fucking arsenal.
None of those places have great-granddaddy laws protecting citizens right to keep and bear arms, you brain dead fucking moron.
  #185  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:56 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
"Drawing conclusions about liberals by studying communists is not a very sound practice."

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/...communism.html
“Drawing conclusions about conservatives by studying Socialist Nazis is not a very sound practice”.

~ Me

Doesn’t stop you fools from doing it at every available instance though.
  #186  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:02 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Funny, Beto states “Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15’s and AK-47’s” and you go from that to some weird, watered down, personal interpretation of what that means
I interpret it as meaning that he intends to enact (if he can) legislation making the possession of AR-15's and AK-47's illegal. What's "weird" or "watered down" or "personal" about that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed
This is what it means: “We’re going to take your rifles, by force if need be, if you resist we are going to red flag you and publicly label you a domestic terrorist”.
Are you suggesting that O'Rourke is proposing to illegally confiscate legally owned rifles? I think that's ridiculously unlikely, and I certainly don't believe he'd ever be able to implement such a proposal even if he wanted to. He himself would obviously be the felon in that case.

If, on the other hand, he obtains the popular majority support and the legislative votes to pass such legislation in accordance with regular legislative procedure, then those rifles will no longer be legally owned. And in that case (unless the courts were to block such a law on grounds of unconstitutionality), people who "resist" complying with that law will be criminals, and should be red-flagged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed
If the left starts to go and overnight make felons out of millions of its own citizens [...]
Legislation on such issues is not created and passed "overnight", and "the left" alone can't produce the popular majority support that it would require.

But if legislation to that effect is eventually passed, then refusing to comply with it will be violating the law, just like refusing to comply with any other legislation.

That's how the rule of law in a democracy works. Laws are passed which some people want and other people don't, but everybody is equally obligated to comply with them, whether they like them or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed
[...] all of which are mostly good, law abiding people, there would be a disaster.
If people deliberately create a "disaster" by resorting to criminal armed violence to avoid complying with a law that they're legally obligated to comply with, then they're not "good, law abiding people".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed
There’s no stopping it, there’s no way around it.

Millions of people believe, deeper than any other position, that those rifles are the last stand. Would they all fight? Of course not, but thousands probably would.
If those people can't accept that the rule of law in a democracy applies to their rifles just as much as to anything else (again, except in the case of a law's implementation being blocked in the courts due to a constitutionality challenge), then they are either stupid or crazy or both.

If a violent confrontation with "thousands" of people stupid and/or crazy enough to refuse to abide by the law just because it affects gun ownership is truly inevitable and unstoppable, then that's on them. You can't fix stupid and/or crazy people just by spinelessly letting them get away with violent criminal behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed
This is how twisted the left is. They will go after their own people, by force if they could, to get what they want.
"The left" is not responsible for the fact that a majority of Americans now support banning the sale of semiautomatic weapons and other gun control measures.

The majority of Americans don't feel that way because "the left" told them to: they feel that way because they're sick and tired of seeing schoolchildren and other innocent victims get massacred by mass murderers with powerful firearms.


If you want the majority of Americans to regain more trust in gun owners instead of regarding you as a bunch of dangerous nuts who need your most powerful weapons taken away for your own and everybody else's safety, then you need to start convincing them that you are responsible and law-abiding people who respect the rule of law even in the case of legislation you disagree with. Not trying to scare them with dire warnings about how you're going to turn into a pack of violent outlaw terrorists if anybody dares to pass any legislation that restricts any form of gun ownership in any way.

Gun-rights fanatics have dug themselves into their current hole by their own intransigence (and by the murderous villainy of a tiny minority of their number), and they can't get out of it by trying to shift the blame to "the left".
  #187  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:02 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
I'm amused that you think I'm a "hardcore left winger"; you've probably never even talked to one.

The right wing is all about malice, greed and tyranny, and has killed huge numbers of people. And it is in the process of destroying civilization, which will kill billions at the very least.

The right isn't interested in being left alone, and it opposes the existence of civil rights. The right exists to support tyranny and bigotry, rape and torture and murder, genocide, irrationality, ignorance, lies and cruelty. It is the nearest thing to pure evil that has ever existed, completely lacking in redeeming qualities of any kind.

The ultimate goal of a right winger is to be the last fanatic left alive on a world of corpses. They will willingly die so long as they can watch everyone else die first, as painfully as possible.
Only one minor problem with this statement is that it’s both historically false and an intentional lie.

The left has killed more people than the right and are continuing to do so to this very day, but I guess that’s the rights fault.

Maybe next time if we give you our guns and treasure you’ll finally get it right and not starve/murder everyone.
  #188  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:09 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
“Drawing conclusions about conservatives by studying Socialist Nazis is not a very sound practice”.

~ Me

Doesn’t stop you fools from doing it at every available instance though.
Well, thanks for certifying that you are an idiot. I did not do that. What history shows is that conservatives before did learn from history about what to do to avoid falling into fascism, and most of them are also doing it now, again, most do approve of red flag laws.

It just so happens that many conservatives are clueless, forgetting that most representatives of them in government are not following what they think. Thanks to misguided propaganda lobbies telling Republicans what to do at top government levels.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-14-2019 at 01:10 AM.
  #189  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:17 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
I interpret it as meaning that he intends to enact (if he can) legislation making the possession of AR-15's and AK-47's illegal. What's "weird" or "watered down" or "personal" about that?


Are you suggesting that O'Rourke is proposing to illegally confiscate legally owned rifles? I think that's ridiculously unlikely, and I certainly don't believe he'd ever be able to implement such a proposal even if he wanted to. He himself would obviously be the felon in that case.

If, on the other hand, he obtains the popular majority support and the legislative votes to pass such legislation in accordance with regular legislative procedure, then those rifles will no longer be legally owned. And in that case (unless the courts were to block such a law on grounds of unconstitutionality), people who "resist" complying with that law will be criminals, and should be red-flagged.


Legislation on such issues is not created and passed "overnight", and "the left" alone can't produce the popular majority support that it would require.

But if legislation to that effect is eventually passed, then refusing to comply with it will be violating the law, just like refusing to comply with any other legislation.

That's how the rule of law in a democracy works. Laws are passed which some people want and other people don't, but everybody is equally obligated to comply with them, whether they like them or not.


If people deliberately create a "disaster" by resorting to criminal armed violence to avoid complying with a law that they're legally obligated to comply with, then they're not "good, law abiding people".


If those people can't accept that the rule of law in a democracy applies to their rifles just as much as to anything else (again, except in the case of a law's implementation being blocked in the courts due to a constitutionality challenge), then they are either stupid or crazy or both.

If a violent confrontation with "thousands" of people stupid and/or crazy enough to refuse to abide by the law just because it affects gun ownership is truly inevitable and unstoppable, then that's on them. You can't fix stupid and/or crazy people just by spinelessly letting them get away with violent criminal behavior.


"The left" is not responsible for the fact that a majority of Americans now support banning the sale of semiautomatic weapons and other gun control measures.

The majority of Americans don't feel that way because "the left" told them to: they feel that way because they're sick and tired of seeing schoolchildren and other innocent victims get massacred by mass murderers with powerful firearms.


If you want the majority of Americans to regain more trust in gun owners instead of regarding you as a bunch of dangerous nuts who need your most powerful weapons taken away for your own and everybody else's safety, then you need to start convincing them that you are responsible and law-abiding people who respect the rule of law even in the case of legislation you disagree with. Not trying to scare them with dire warnings about how you're going to turn into a pack of violent outlaw terrorists if anybody dares to pass any legislation that restricts any form of gun ownership in any way.

Gun-rights fanatics have dug themselves into their current hole by their own intransigence (and by the murderous villainy of a tiny minority of their number), and they can't get out of it by trying to shift the blame to "the left".
Or - and hear me out here - you take all that majority and hyperbole and horseshit, get your states and representatives together into a supermajority and change the amendment itself, you know, the way it was intended when originally written, and bypass all this tension and danger of directly circumventing the nations founding documents.

Or not. Be tyrants acting in bad faith, continue to vilify millions of citizens, threaten them and call them terrorists.

Seems to me if you keep losing to an orange moron with bad hair, maybe you guys are fucking up, and this conversation might be a good starting point to look inward and ask why.
  #190  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:19 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
None of those places have great-granddaddy laws protecting citizens right to keep and bear arms, you brain dead fucking moron.
Nether does America, despite the fantasies of the right. Not that it matters since laws can be changed.

And I do note the "America is uniquely incompetent" argument the Right likes to toss out. Everyone else on the planet can do something but Americans are just too stupid.
  #191  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:22 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well, thanks for certifying that you are an idiot. I did not do that. What history shows is that conservatives before did learn from history about what to do to avoid falling into fascism, and most of them are also doing it now, again, most do approve of red flag laws.

It just so happens that many conservatives are clueless, forgetting that most representatives of them in government are not following what they think. Thanks to misguided propaganda lobbies telling Republicans what to do at top government levels.
Show me where a majority of republican politicians across the states support red flag laws.
  #192  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:25 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
None of those places have great-granddaddy laws protecting citizens right to keep and bear arms, you brain dead fucking moron.
I assume that "great-granddaddy law" is a legal term that I'm unfamiliar with. One might note, however, if actually speaking to someone sane, unlike yourself, that even the ludicrously incorrect and regressive Heller interpretation recognized that some gun restrictions are necessary and not in any contravention of even the most extremist interpretation of the 2nd amendment. So nothing about banning or buybacks of some of the most dangerous weapons around contravenes even such extremist interpretations.

Even wonder why right-wing morons like yourself are such intransigent gun nuts? Of course you don't. Morons of limited intelligence don't wonder about anything. So let me explain it to you. It's because their little tiny walnut-size brains are completely filled with conspiracy theories about how the Deep State is out get them, the government can't be trusted, brown people are out to take their jobs and black people are out to rob and kill them.

So they cuddle their guns and take them to bed with them and take joy in shooting at things and killing things and generally wreaking havoc in the world, and then when gun control is discussed, they threaten armed rebellion, because gun nuttery is the only thing they know. The concept of living in a civilized, peaceful society under the rule of law is not a concept that can be accommodated in their little tiny walnut-size brains. The idea of a civilized peaceful society is much too complicated for a simian-like brain such as yours to comprehend, but shooting at things and killing things is easy and fun for hairless apes like yourself.
  #193  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:26 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Or - and hear me out here - you take all that majority and hyperbole and horseshit, get your states and representatives together into a supermajority and change the amendment itself, you know, the way it was intended when originally written, and bypass all this tension and danger of directly circumventing the nations founding documents.
Oh, please; the electoral system is hopelessly corrupt and designed to support the right wing. It barely matters how many people support something, the system is gerrymandered and votes are suppressed and everything possible is done to make sure the right wins. That's the only reason the Republicans aren't basically irrelevant in the first place, in a real democracy they'd almost never win elections.
  #194  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:27 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Show me where a majority of republican politicians across the states support red flag laws.
And thank you for showing all that you can not read. The main point I made was that while most rank and file Republicans do approve of the laws many in power do not. (although -as you also did not read- in several states it was thanks to bipartisan support that red flag laws did pass).

Guess that it will eventually will become a losing issue for the Republicans in power.
  #195  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:28 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Nether does America, despite the fantasies of the right
Well fuck me, how do you explain the Second Amendment, it’s historical context, intent, the federalist papers, and the millions and millions and millions of guns in the USA and the Millions and Millions of Americans supporting it.

I guess this is where you go on some weird meltdown where you ignore all of the above and talk about your feelings on the matter.
  #196  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:29 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And thank you for showing all that you can not read. The main point I made was that while most rank and file Republicans do approve of the laws many in power do not. (although -as you also did not read- in several states it was thanks to bipartisan support that red flag laws did pass).

Guess that it will eventually will become a losing issue for the Republicans in power.
Show me where most Republicans approve of any of this.
  #197  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:35 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Show me where most Republicans approve of any of this.
It is a very happy occasion when a dunce like you begs to get more confirmation to make others know that guys like you are not paying attention.

Already showed to you back in post #146:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=146

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-14-2019 at 01:37 AM.
  #198  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:37 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Or - and hear me out here - you take all that majority and hyperbole and horseshit, get your states and representatives together into a supermajority and change the amendment itself, you know, the way it was intended when originally written, and bypass all this tension and danger of directly circumventing the nations founding documents.
There's no reason a popular majority couldn't do both. Implement legal and constitutional restrictions on certain forms of gun ownership in the short term, and work to repeal the Second Amendment in the long term. It's not an either-or proposition.

Again, you seem to have the notion that it's automatically unconstitutional to enact any kind of legal restrictions whatsoever on any kind of gun ownership. The courts do not agree with you on that.

Whether an outright ban on all ownership of AR-15's and AK-47's and/or semiautomatic weapons in general would be considered constitutional by the courts is something that seems to me more doubtful (but IANAL).

However, if a particular legislature passes a particular firearms ban that does turn out to be unconstitutional, the way to deal with that is by challenging and overturning the ban with a lawsuit. Not by staging some kind of terroristic "armed resistance" replay of Ruby Ridge.

And if a particular legislature passes a particular firearms ban that turns out not to be unconstitutional, then the way to deal with that is to comply with the law---remember that bit about being a rational law-abiding citizen?---and relinquish any weapons that are now illegal to own.

In other words, suck it up and remember that that's how the rule of law in a democracy works: sometimes you have to comply with laws you don't like, even if they might not be very good laws, because a majority of other people want them. You can legally try to persuade the other people to change the law, but you can't legally hunker down and shoot them when they demand that you comply with the law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed
continue to vilify millions of citizens, threaten them and call them terrorists.
If people deliberately resort to armed criminal violence to avoid complying with laws they don't happen to like, it's not "vilifying" them to call them terrorists. "Threatening" armed criminals with penalties for deliberately violating the law is exactly the right thing to do.


Why do you keep insisting that many gun owners will choose to behave like criminals and terrorists rather than comply with a law they don't like, and then getting all insulted when other people point out that in that case the gun owners would be criminals and terrorists?

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-14-2019 at 01:40 AM.
  #199  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:56 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Well fuck me, how do you explain the Second Amendment, it’s historical context, intent, the federalist papers, and the millions and millions and millions of guns in the USA and the Millions and Millions of Americans supporting it.
The Second Amendment specifically talks about an armed organized militia, not random people.

And most people support gun control.
  #200  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:58 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
The right isn't interested in being left alone, and it opposes the existence of civil rights. The right exists to support tyranny and bigotry, rape and torture and murder, genocide, irrationality, ignorance, lies and cruelty. It is the nearest thing to pure evil that has ever existed, completely lacking in redeeming qualities of any kind.

Bolding above mine.

The current leader of the Right, the president, painted himself into a corner when he decided that a murderer is an American hero. So the murderer was court-martialed and convicted because he did, in fact, murder someone. Trump pardoned the killer not for any valid reason, but because he had already touted the man as the epitome of all that America stands for. Now that Trump has done that, he's showing what his idea of government stands for: murder.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017