Just for ‘’‘’‘self defense’‘’‘’ of course, so it’s OK!
These too, also for self defense:
Um. In that first pic … does Junior’s shirt say, “Texas Never Backs Down ?”
What a lovely sentiment. What could possibly go wrong ?
It does. I wonder if he’ll feel differently if one of those shotguns falls off the roof and hits him on the head.
I was thinking that @Martin_Hyde was sounding more like Clothahump than Slacker, but you may be right on your assessment.
Thinking well of yourself isn’t standing.
That is ego.
Like referring to yourself as a “stable genius”.
Yeah, you can’t have liberty without bodily autonomy. That seems way more fundamental than guns. I mean, what’s the point of self defense if not to defend your bodily autonomy.
It’s a shame our founding fathers were so short-sighted as to enshrine guns and not a lot of more useful and important rights.
The only person in this thread to wish death on innocent people is you – that’s what “trading lives for rights” means. Other people have just suggested that some of those you wish dead might be people you know, rather than faceless people you don’t know.
By the way, I recognize that we do, sometimes, need to “trade lives for rights”. There are situations where I’d be willing to die to support a critical right. The reason you are getting a lot of pushback is because I think I’m in the majority in this thread in thinking that gun rights are a pretty minor good to balance against the vast number of deaths that guns cause in the US.
That’s a strawman. No one has suggested a total ban of guns in the US. A few of us speculated about getting rid of all guns, I think I referred to a magic wand, but no one in this thread has seriously suggested a total ban on guns. Rather, a lot of people think that guns are grossly under-regulated in the US, that the founders made a mistake, and the supreme court has magnified that mistake,
So maybe you should spend more pixels talking about what you think would be useful gun control, and fewer talking about the importance of gun rights. Because I totally reject the importance of gun rights. Yeah, it’s the law and all that, but as far as I can tell, it’s a bad law. It has zero moral standing in my books. It’s just an unfortunate legacy that we need to maneuver around to make any improvements. We ought to be regulating guns more strictly than cars, not less strictly.
I’m sure the cheer squad will be here any moment, in the mean time, you are absolutely wrong with this sentence from your above post.
“The only person in this thread to wish death on innocent people is you.” Wrong!
Read Drsunflower1’s post #105…
He said, “I hope the next gun death will be someone you know. Or by someone you know.”
Why did he get mod noted then?
And they kind of didn’t even do that. Talk of commas and such aside, it’s pretty clear they meant the ability for states to form and arm their own militias, rather than any individual right to arms.
No matter what gun nuts might believe, there were plenty of firearm control laws (it even says well regulated right there) at the local and state levels until more recently, even and especially after the Bill of Rights was ratified, including firearm registration, controlled access not just to firearms but ammunition, laws regarding storage/transport, laws against public carry, etc. The modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is awe-inspiring in its historical revisionism. The idea that the ‘intent’ of the writers of the Constitution was a weapons free for all is historical nonsense.
That line of discussion would be a massive topic diversion–but probably a majority of the Founding Fathers were not in favor of enshrining rights in the text of the Federal constitution at all. It was essentially done as a sop to the Anti-Federalists.
The juxtaposition of these comments really shows your bias, and probably emotional hostility towards gun ownership. You are choosing to ignore Drsunflower1’s plain worders “I hope the next gun death will be someone you know” is clearly wishing for someone’s death–in this case specifically a person I know.
Meanwhile, “trading lives for rights”, does not mean someone “wishes death on innocent people.” In fact that construction is so manifestly stupid that it makes me reanalyze the gist of this thread. I assumed most of you were just being massively dishonest. Someone interfered with your recreational gun outrage, so you had to foam at the mouth and cry, tell lies, troll etc. Part of that is of course taking my words out of context and repeating them over and over. But given your textual analysis here, I guess I forgot plain stupidity and maybe a form of illiteracy could be at play as well.
By any plain understanding of the English language, “willingness to trade a life” does not at all mean “wishing death.” I find it strange and almost unbelievable I am having to explain such a simple, elementary concept. It’s like saying George Washington “wished death” on his soldiers because he was willing to trade the lives of his soldiers to win independence. Do you think that’s a fair description of Washington’s position? Or saying that Lincoln “wished death” on Union soldiers because he was willing to trade their lives to preserve the Union? That’s a fair analysis? Maybe it’s a simple recognition that sometimes sacrifices must be made for higher principles.
Yes, and this forum isn’t representative of America. Just because it’s an echo chamber doesn’t give opinion the weight of moral certitude. In China they don’t value free speech, in America we will die to defend it. Different societies and people value different things, welcome to the real world–not everyone lives in your massive bubble of far leftism.
Again–that comment was part of a specific hypothetical in another thread. I am not the one who keeps bringing it up over and over and over again. You guys think you found some barb to the heart or kryptonite to use against me, and I’m not going to just allow it to be reposted without comment in this thread, so I have responded to posts about it. But I am not raising that point continuously, I’m responding to a line of posts that keep referencing it.
Well, and you’re entitled to do that. I’m entitled to give your opinions all the weight they deserve–which is essentially none. My side won guns, your side lost. I don’t like to do this sort of thing, but frankly with the poor behavior I’ve seen from you people in this thread I frankly am happy to gloat that we’ve won. Gun rights are ironclad protected in the United States, thanks largely to people like you helping Republicans win on this issue again and again. Now that they are locked down you can never win on this issue, and never will, nothing you can do will ever change it, we won, you lost.
What’s sad is someone on the side of gun rights who would happily see reasonable gun controls enacted, apparently has no common ground with the people who claim to be super concerned about gun violence. I guess you guys never were concerned about dead kids and gun violence. You were just concerned about being able to bash people you don’t like.
fuck you
dirtbag.
Let’s not forget which one of us said “I also firmly want it understood—I am 100% willing to trade more deaths for gun rights.”
That, that right there, that’s you wishing death on other people. I sincerely hope you’re willing to sacrifice your own loved ones first.
Don’t go wishing death on my friends and family.
Yes, your side won . . . please bathe in the carnage that that victory is bringing us.
You vile monster! You’re wishing death on people who are geographically close enough to Martin that he can easily commute to bathe in their viscera! Why do you want specific people tangentially related to Martin to die, rather than generic people he doesn’t know? MONSTER!!
Come, come, now. Clearly, I’m wishing that Martin drowns in the blood of gun death victims.
BTW, I think folks missed this,
Martin_Hyde champion of reasonable gun control laws.
And if ya still don’t get it here’s the difference between “shall” and “may”.
Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word “may,” which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.
Like Roe v. Wade made abortion rights ironclad?
Gun rights aren’t really being supported very meaningfully by any form of judicial intervention. You would need to have Democrats winning in enough small, white, rural States to attain 60 votes in the Senate to even seriously approach Federal legislation. At the State level probably 30 some states are politically strongly disposed against gun regulations and anyone deeply concerned about gun rights is probably opting not to live in California or New Jersey.
But add the concept of specificity, as in “willingness to trade a specific life,” and it does mean “wishing death,” is that your position?
I mean, if it is, okay. It’s useful to know your frame of reference, I guess.
But you clearly don’t, since you are flat out advocating for innocent people to die to protect what you label “fundamental rights,” ignoring that Life is literally the first fundamental right: life, then liberty, then pursuit of happiness. It’s just that you don’t think you’d be among the people who would need to die to protect someone else’s right to carry a gun.
The funny thing is that what you accuse others of doing is what you have done. They aren’t making up positions. They are taking the natural conclusion from your statements. But you had no problem making up a deliberately inflammatory position that liberals don’t care about gun control except when there are mass shootings—something you have to know is untrue simply because you’ve participated in these threads so often. You know that it comes up other times.
You also do the most annoying part of sealioning: the part where you claim that you’re being polite and otehrs aren’t. But (1) you’re not and (2) you’re deliberately posting in a forum that is all about not being polite, and which was specifically created to call you out. It’s like going to your own comedy roast and complaining that everyone is unfair because they make rude jokes.
If you’d just stop with that nonsense and debate the topic, this whole thing wouldn’t have started. If you’d actually showed any interest in convincing people who you knew would be hostile to your viewpoint, people might have listened. I can literally link multiple videos where someone I like (Beau of the Fifth Column) does exactly that. He’s so leftist that his progressivism leans into anarchy. Yet he thinks gun bans are pointless.
And I tend to agree with his point that there is no way that an assault rifle ban gets both passed and not overturned by the Supreme Court, and that there are other ideas that could do more in a faster time scale. Fix the “boyfriend” loophole in the domestic violence statutes, and take away guns from those who abuse animals. That’s over 60% of mass shooters.
And it’s a much easier political sell. The only people who would oppose it are the police, who often have DV records. But that would look bad on them, so they have a decent chance of not making it.
I also agree with him that a huge part of the problem is gun culture, and the idea that guns make you “more of a man.” And that laws follow public opinion, so we need to work on fixing that problem first.
Now I’ve said something that goes against what the gun control people tend to want. What chances do you think there are that I’ll be attacked? Could it be that it’s not about the position, and actually about how it is presented?