Sure, and the RINOs will be the *first *against the wall when the Revolution comes.
That’s what you think I said? Really. Do explain.
Admitting you don’t have the answers is not a problem. It’s a good thing, and something we need a lot more of. Humility is the root of learning.
But the way you presented to yourself in here was not that you are humbly struggling to learn, that there were arguments presented to you that you wanted to hear further discussion of. You said rather that you had been talking to a “gun freak” and you wanted to “hand him his lunch.” Those are angry, intolerant words that suggest to me that you do not understand the real purpose of argument as an intellectual process, and instead just want to “win” over your “enemy.” Further, your OP raised the possibility that you were going to take what other people said here and repeat them over there as if they were your own ideas.
If I am mistaken, please tell me so.
In a way, I can’t blame you too much; one gets the “automatic gainsaying” model thrust in one’s face all the time on TV, etc., that most people can’t even grasp the goal of debating while still having an open mind; but it is an ideal worth pursuing.
I would prefer that you stay in GD, advancing your arguments firmly but graciously and thereby helping others and yourself learn. But if you can’t do that – if all you can do every time someone says something you don’t like or asks a tough question is act wounded and make a frowny face smiley – well, in that case, yeah, it’s probably better you not hang out in GD. Or any other place adults have serious discussions. Oh, and I’d prefer you didn’t vote, either.
Could you cite and explain how so?
No cite from me, but I believe their reasoning was that different places were entitled to place certain restrictions on firearm ownership as they felt was necessary, but D.C. went too far. I agree with the first part, but I’m not sure that D.C. is really out of line. However, I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever taken a class in such, so obviously I’m not really qualified to comment on it.
What the Captain said. As I understand the ruling, it said something to the effect that reasonable restrictions are okay; bans are not.
It then entirely failed to define reasonable.
Which leaves the door open for places like D.C. or Chicago to essentially make it that you can only legally aquire a firearm by standing on one leg all night in the rain on February 29th during a full moon.
You are mistaken. I did not do that.
He had referred to himself in an earlier comment as a “gun freak;” I should’ve clarified that. I just quoted the one statement because it most concisely represented his point.
Also I don’t think that “hand him his lunch” is “angry and intolerant.” I think it’s a funny thing to say; guess I should’ve thrown a smiley in there. I mean, who says that…and who thinks it promotes animosity? I would crack up if someone said that to me and they were serious!
Your last two sentences were quite a bit nastier than anything that I even implied.
Well in all fairness, the NRA has power because people act like this guy.
I frankly don’t see that **Hazle Weatherfield **has done anything wrong. Someone posted something obviously insane on a messageboard, and she wants to know how to convince him that what he posted is insane. To refresh your memory:
The clear implication is that the guy thinks Obama wants to use the federal gov’t to outlaw all guns. That is an insane position, not one that is really open for debate, and I don’t think HW is being dishonest by asking how such a person might be shown the error of his ways. Okay, Obama supports bad legislation like the Assault Weapons ban. Fine. But that is not what the quote in the OP is accusing him of; it is accusing Obama of having a far more radical (and unconstitutional) agenda.
Thanks, S&I!
If he does, I may well soil myself laughing.
“Convincing” and “showing the error of ones ways” do not equal “hand him his lunch” the OP couldn’t refute his point on her own so she looked here for help.
Here are the facts:
- Obama is reasonably seen as anti-gun.
- Congress has a Democratic majority, with rabidly anti-gun legislators such as Schumer, Feinstein, and Pelosi present. Remember Feinstein’s quote: “If I could have banned them all: ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ — I would have!”
So, the pieces are in place for legislation against second Ammendment rights. If/when Congress thinks it is the right time and if/when they think they can get the votes, I think they’ll try it. Why would Schumer, Feinstein, and Pelosi stop working on an issue they obviously consider so important? Look for a workplace or school shooting to start them off.
"“To those of us who defend gun rights as we defend any other fundamental human right, that’s how you sound.”
To call gun rights a fundamental human right is stretching probability a little for anybody who’s not from the USA or some rather uneducated and uncivilized part of the world. Most civilized people would say a multitude of guns in the hands of private citizens is begging for disaster. We tend to point to the USA as a case in point. Of course you all could care less what the rest of the world thinks. Even if the cultural export of this gun addiciton is starting to cause problems in other places. It is never your problem, is it?
By a Pubbie:Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
6/12/2008–Introduced.
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 - Amends the federal criminal code to reinstate, for 10 years, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act’s assault weapons ban to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Specifies models and features of banned weapons.
Sets forth exceptions to such ban, including: (1) firearms or devices lawfully possessed under federal law on the date of enactment of this Act; (2) certain firearms, replicas, or duplicates listed in an appendix as they were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (3) any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action and that has been rendered permanently inoperable or that is an antique firearm; (4) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; (5) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; and (6) firearms manufactured for, transferred to, or possessed by a federal, state, or local government agency or for law enforcement.
Requires the serial number of any weapon or device manufactured after enactment of this Act to clearly show the date of manufacture.
Directs the Attorney General to study and report to Congress on the effects of this Act on violent and drug trafficking crime.
I see what you did there.
Signed,
Uncivilized, Uneducated Gun Owner
I’ll be clinging to my guns and religion if you need me, because that’s the only way I can get over how bitter I am.
[sub]I can’t get enough of Ad hominems…[/sub]
You can, of course, supply at least one example of this.
Obama is pandering to his base. Just like the repubs are pandering to the gun nuts. Nothing ever happens. It must be hard not sleeping as you nestle up to your guns to protect them when nobody is coming for them. The irrationality of gun loonies amazes me.
As I replied in post #60 I am heartened that even the RINOs are also pushing the anti gun agenda. So now we are getting in from both sides in the true spirit of bipartisan politics and reaching across the aisles. Nothing to worry about there, just move on. :rolleyes:
And they’re free to cede whatever rights they collectively wish to the government. I’m certainly not going to do the same.
And a lot of more “civilized” countries have some disgusting self defense laws, often mandating that people have to run from their own homes and jailing people for injuring or killing people who posed a grave threat to them. Apparently the epitome of being “civilized” is being dependent on government to provide for you the most fundamental of responsibilities - that of defense of one’s life.
Many anti-gun-rights advocates like to focus on the guns themselves, to suggest that advocates fetishize them - they tend to refuse to see them as a natural extension of the right of self defense. It makes it easier to hold simplistic views about how we clutch them because of our small penises and insecurities while feeling smug, rather than cowardly, about their own submission of relying on someone else to provide that basic responsibility for them.
And there are societies who think religious and political freedoms are a recipe for disaster. I’m certainly not going to give those up without a fight either.
In as far as our domestic policies go - and not even economic stuff that can affect you directly - then sure, who cares what you think?
Undoubtedly Miami Vice reruns have brainwashed the world into killing each other. The US should pay global reparations.
Still waiting on your cites regarding handguns and the 2nd Ammendment, Gonzomax.