You equate the right to murder children with the right to free speech.
Chilling. Deeply chilling.
That’s what I am conveying. In very plain English.
Got it?
Almost missed this.
My answer: I doubt it. Making people surrender their arms would cost the Democrats the presidency and the Senate for certain. It would be political suicide so it’s unlikely.
But it’s semantics anyway. Saying they’re going to “ban guns” or “take away” guns can mean different things based on context. It’s not inaccurate to say that it’s likely that Biden will attempt to “take away” some guns. That might mean confiscation, or more likely take away the right to purchase them.
If you want to know what a poster means by using a phrase like that you can just ask. It doesn’t have to just be an opportunity to play gotcha.
This would have something resembling meaning if anyone was talking about a right to murder children.
I propose we get rid of whatever the fuck it is in the Constitution that allows guilty people to go free when the police make a procedural error. Yeah, you didn’t give him the Miranda warning, who gives a shit? Put the stupid fucking criminal asshole in jail and throw away the key. How can anyone support the right of criminals to go free?
Sometimes positive rights have negative side effects.
Congratulations on getting your point across in an understandable way. Good job.
Now, please provide a cite where I have equated murder with free speech. Take your time. Feel free to show your work.
Well, we’re talking mostly about people on the right who don’t post here, so that’s not really an option. At any rate, if someone wants to say that Obama is going to curtail some gun rights, then they should say precisely that. It’s not up to me to parse some not-very-obvious meaning from “Obama is going to take away our guns”.
No one here wants the ““right” to blow a 7 year old’s face off”. What the fuck made you say that?
See Post # 51.
Last graph.
You find it a stretch to equate killing children with your stance?
Free speech didn’t murder them. The guns you adore did.
It is that plain and simple.
You think free speech killed them and not guns?
Prove me wrong. Oh, and by all means, show your work.
I doubt even then.
Regards,
Shodan
Anyone who wants to be able to spray forth hundreds of rounds a minute isn’t interested in Olympic target shooting.
The guns used in this most recent massacre- and quite a few others- are built for one purpose and one purpose only: to very rapidly destroy anything alive in front of it when discharged.
You demand the right to own that gun? Then you’re very happy with the rights exercised by your fellow gun-toter in Connecticut.
You’re not supportive of the idea of owning a device like that? Fine. Say so.
That’s “what the fuck” made me say that. Simple statement of fact.
I don’t know what “graph” you are referring to, but the last sentence in post #51 obviously refers to taking away all remaining guns, not all remaining parts of the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps you should stop frothing at the mouth for a bit and take a step back from this thread.
EDIT: Oh, last paragraph.
I don’t think this slippery slope argument is persuasive (like most slippery-slope arguments). After all, everything from nuclear weapons down to automatic submachine guns have been outlawed for decades- why would (for example) banning magazines larger than 10-rounds, or applying background checks and waiting periods to gun shows and ammunition suddenly put us on the road to banning all handguns?
I think this shows how effective the NRA is in engendering fear in their membership and supporters. I actually probably agree with you on most gun rights issues, but it’s clear to me that the NRA exists first to raise money for the NRA (and personally enrich Wayne LaPierre and others), and a very distant second to actually protect gun rights.
That is from an article that is commentary but it appears to be backed up properly with facts. And it was not written by a NRA shill for scare tactics.
So the Democrats in congress plan on serving up Biden a law which makes the possession of weapons deemed to be assault weapons illegal.
It sounds very much like you are thinking of some incident where someone used an automatic weapon to kill a child. Do you have a cite for such an incident recently?
Because I can’t think of any.
Regards,
Shodan
Tell me this. If that asshole made bombs with gasoline and shit he bought at Home Depot and used it to blow up the school, would you be calling for restrictions on who can get fuel at a gas station? Would the items a person buys need to be checked to see if they can build a bomb from them?
You are using guns as a bogyman. If I knew that banning guns would end all murders, then I would agree with it. It would be a trad off that is more than worth it.
But that simply is not the case.
No asshole, I am not happy with the actions of the man who killed 20 little kids. If you want to put 2 and 2 together and get 46, than that just makes you an idiot.
And correct me if I am wrong, but you are not allowed to lie about other posters in the other sections here, right? This asshat is telling me that I am happy that little kids got killed, and that makes me feel sick. Can you make up lies about members in the Pit?
You can blame CNN for sloppy quoting. If you go to the original source, linked to in the CNN cite, it says:
Nobody equates that. Your analogy is flawed at multiple levels.
The First Amendment means that we get the Westboro Baptist Church and the Klan legally spouting their hatred.
The 4th Amendment makes it hard to lock up criminals, letting them free to rape, murder, steal.
ALL rights have a price to them.
There was an effort to tag the materials that can be used in the bombs, IIRC even one case was cracked by an early tag of the materials.
Guess what party made efforts to pass rules to prevent that tagging (in a more specific case, of gun powder) from taking place?
Notice that nowhere there was an effort to put limits to Home Depot or Gas stations.
Of course there’s a difference. However, that difference does not appear in the text or the history of the Second Amendment, so all you’re arguing about is where the line is drawn on “firearms”.
Something between the two. Say an M67.
Dude, you’re not helping. If you want Something To Be Done, silly hyperbole doesn’t help.