What are the negative and positive effects of guns in society?

Yes. The point isn’t to actually undermine every other goal the city may have - it’s to force them to abandon their restrictive policies. Either way if successful it’s a win.

And Americans have some of my pity as a result. I mean, really, guns are that ingrained that vexatious litigation leading (ideally) to a city being unable to provide health services, policing, fire response or garbage collection is a “win”? Yikes.

It would never occur to me to “prioritize” what is mandated by the US Constitution. They are all so, or we are no longer the United States of America. The 2nd Amendment is carved in stone, written in … well … something other than clear and indisputable language.

If we can’t trust the Supreme Court to get the interpretation correct, then this isn’t the United States of America.

Serious, you want Congress to regulate guns? Has their approval rating been over 10% recently or something?

I think your Congress at this point couldn’t regulate a tee-ball game, but I have no wish beyond the “wouldn’t it be nice if…” to see them try to put laws on gun ownership. I see more practical and potentially useful avenues they could try first, once the surgery to remove their collective heads from their collective asses takes place.

And the 2nd Amendment isn’t even metaphorically carved in stone, any more than the 18th was. And if you say prioritization would never occur to you, well… sure… I’ll take you at your word. It doesn’t strike me as a particularly thoughtful position, but whatever.

I pay for my own health care. Police are revenue generators first, crime fighters somewhere thereafter. Fire stations are closing left and right, never mind the massive wages received. I pay for my own garbage collection.

Do you pay a toll when you leave your driveway? Welcome to the socialist paradise!

I also maintain the road to my house since it’s private - so no. But I do pay for the local roads through city and local taxes, as well as gas taxes. There’s nothing wrong with paying for these services so this is a bit of a non-sequitur.

To the point that litigating against cities who infringe on the rights of its population would be a detriment to the other services the city provides - like I said I’m fine with that. I’d prefer the local governments simply comply but if they don’t then they should pay.

Um…you realize this is shifting the goal posts and a bit of a strawman, right? What I was responding to was simply your statement here:

Your other argument with Bone is between you and he and has nothing to do with what I was responding too. And while I’m sure your pity is heartfelt, having lived in Canada myself I can say truthfully that you should save it for others more deserving. :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, when your city (or county or whatever) gets litigated into bankruptcy, then I guess nobody will notice, but you were talking about going after other cities where, just maybe, not everyone pays for their own health care, the police are effective, fire stations are wanted and garbage is collected by contractors hired by local government, and all because they don’t view guns the same way you do.

That’s how socialism works. We pay taxes, and the government provides infrastructure and services.

And I was being efficient in responding to you AND him in one post.

That’s how ALL government work, and isn’t unique or even representative of what socialism is.

All the copies of the US Constitution I’ve seen have always included the 18th Amendment. Not a single word has ever been deleted from document.

The 2nd Amendment will always be the 2nd Amendment. What we’re proposing is a 29th Amendment that would “repeal and replace” the 2nd Amendment.

Pipe dreams, our Congress couldn’t get 2/3’s majority in both houses to recognize tee-ball even existed.

I must have missed the part that related to anything I wrote then. :stuck_out_tongue:

Yes, I gather you did. I’m not sure how, since my first sentence was pretty clear and in English.

It is in the cartoon version of socialism conservatives like to rail against. Unless they partake of some of the infrastructure and services provided by Uncle Sugar; then it is just the proper role of government.

I thought we were talking about guns. Wait, does socialism lead to guns? Or is it the other way around? Are you saying the government should collect taxes and supply all of us with guns? Please tell me more about socialism.

That stopped being my impression when the idea of suing cities into bankruptcy (with effects well beyond just that city’s gun laws) was advanced.

:stuck_out_tongue: Yeah, it was ‘pretty clear and in English’…it simply had nothing to do with my own post. Why you didn’t just say that is a mystery to me.

That was a bit of a hijack from Jonathan Chance’s mention of the NRA being too extreme. I’m gonna drop that unless there was more there.

This was the part that responded to you (He’s got you there):