Jump to content
slacker

WTF? (**NSFW**)

Recommended Posts

Funny how so many people on here took an oath to support and defend The Constitiution are also the ones who are not supporting and defending The Constitution...

 

Oh and Ratner and the others who are saying they are "Pro-2A" are clearly not.  That's like saying you're against slavery...but that some amounts of slavery are ok...

Funny how people like you believe that black people should only be counted as 3/5s of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation.

 

Jesus do you not see how f&*king ironic your post is. You equate my position to a partial endorsement of slavery, by waiving around a document that originally endorsed slavery!

 

The second amendment is proof that the Constitution was not perfect. The other 26 amendments are additional proof. I'm honestly baffled that you could think that way. It makes me think our gun rights are in bigger peril than I suggested. If the "pro-gun" folks think and debate the issue as you just did, we have no hope of winning this battle after the next few mass murders tilt the balance of public opinion.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I vote we let [mention=1152]HossHarris[/mention] have his Hellfire.....laissez faire

Agreed. What could go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
1 hour ago, HeloDude said:
Funny how so many people on here took an oath to support and defend The Constitiution are also the ones who are not supporting and defending The Constitution...
 
Oh and Ratner and the others who are saying they are "Pro-2A" are clearly not.  That's like saying you're against slavery...but that some amounts of slavery are ok...

Funny how people like you believe that black people should only be counted as 3/5s of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation.

Bout time someone posted something that fits the title of this forum. I get the parallel to slavery was a bit much... but what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bout time someone posted something that fits the title of this forum. I get the parallel to slavery was a bit much... but what?
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Do you defend the Constitution or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RTB said:

So anyone should have access to the full range of military weapons?  This is where the pro-2A argument goes off the rails.  Musket v musket, it made sense.  With today's military weapons, not so much.  Like I said before, there's a reasonable limit beyond which your average joe doesn't need to be armed.  So if that's the case, where do you draw the line?  Does a semi-automatic AR with a 100 round drum magazine and a bump stock make sense?  Should a full-auto rifle be allowed?  Should we let Hoss have his Hellfire missile?  The other side see's our arguments FOR bearing arms as a slippery slope in that direction.  

Yes. Next question.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth said:

While not negotiable, it is changeable.

"For an amendment to be proposed or repealed, it requires two/thirds of both federal legislative bodies — House and Senate — to vote in the affirmative (two/thirds in the House, two/thirds in the Senate). It also requires two/thirds of the state legislatures of the 50 states to vote in the affirmative.  The move to propose or repeal can begin with the American people, with a majority of the populations in two thirds of the 50 states voting for the amendment or its repeal. However, even if the people do this, the push to propose or repeal still has to garner two/thirds House, two/thirds Senate, and two/thirds of all 50 state legislatures."

 

Go for it.  While you're at it, let's fix the anchor baby and term limits issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's against the law to shoot somebody unless in self-defense, right?

It's against the law to murder somebody, right?

 

Let's pass more laws.

 

 

Riiiiiight....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Do you defend the Constitution or not?

Well, first off, The Constituition never mentioned anything about race when counting slaves.  Second off, since slavery was banned in 1865 by The Constitution (yep, same one I'm referring to), not a single person has been counted as "3/5 of a person".  

So yes, I still do support The Constitution and its banning of slavery.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I had no idea what a bump stock was until I watched the video of the chick on YouTube installing one and testing it with a drum magazine. If full auto weapons are highly regulated and require permitting, how can anyone modify an AR like that? It seems to me to be a technical way of circumventing federal laws.

I don’t own an AR yet, but I do have a concealed carry permit and enjoy the right to carry to protect myself if needed. I also know no additional laws will prevent all future events like Vegas, but imagine what the backlash will be 5 years from now when a Pulse nightclub or Vegas massacre happens every few months. I hope that’s not the reality, but our society’s morals are eroding by the day. I’d hate to see a vote for full on modification or repeal of the 2A when enforcing current gun laws or modifying regulations could possibly help the situation. How we go about doing that, I have no idea but I’m at least willing to entertain the thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

I have to admit, I had no idea what a bump stock was until I watched the video of the chick on YouTube installing one and testing it with a drum magazine. If full auto weapons are highly regulated and require permitting, how can anyone modify an AR like that? It seems to me to be a technical way of circumventing federal laws.

I don’t own an AR yet, but I do have a concealed carry permit and enjoy the right to carry to protect myself if needed. I also know no additional laws will prevent all future events like Vegas, but imagine what the backlash will be 5 years from now when a Pulse nightclub or Vegas massacre happens every few months. I hope that’s not the reality, but our society’s morals are eroding by the day. I’d hate to see a vote for full on modification or repeal of the 2A when enforcing current gun laws or modifying regulations could possibly help the situation. How we go about doing that, I have no idea but I’m at least willing to entertain the thought.

We probably have a moral problem not a gun problem... these folks https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html who are not right leaning by any means (Nate Silver's 538 analysts) can't find a gun control solution that will work, and Chicago (where guns are almost 100% illegal, and 100% illegal for felons) had 57 murders in September alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We probably have a moral problem not a gun problem... these folks https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html who are not right leaning by any means (Nate Silver's 538 analysts) can't find a gun control solution that will work, and Chicago (where guns are almost 100% illegal, and 100% illegal for felons) had 57 murders in September alone. 


Yes, I agree that more gun ownership generally correlates to lower crime. But that doesn’t mean that any jackass with money to burn and no criminal record should be able to buy an AR and modify it to effectively be a full auto weapon with a 200 round capacity.

Even though “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” you still can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. All rights have limits. Those limits are where your rights begin to infringe on someone else’s right to life, liberty, and happiness. The catch 22 is that even if you outlaw bump stocks, who’s to say you won’t see people making them with 3D printers. I don’t know what the answer is, but we better start thinking about it before it gets any worse.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

 


Yes, I agree that more gun ownership generally correlates to lower crime. But that doesn’t mean that any jackass with money to burn and no criminal record should be able to buy an AR and modify it to effectively be a full auto weapon with a 200 round capacity.

Even though “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” you still can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. All rights have limits. Those limits are where your rights begin to infringe on someone else’s right to life, liberty, and happiness. The catch 22 is that even if you outlaw bump stocks, who’s to say you won’t see people making them with 3D printers. I don’t know what the answer is, but we better start thinking about it before it gets any worse.

 

I can yell fire in a theater...if there's a fire.  I just can't intentionally induce a panic for no reason.  Just like I can have firearms, but I can't point them at people (or worse fire them)...unless I'm defending my life.  If guns are the problem, that means that alcohol is to blame for people being murdered via drunk driving.

Besides, if stricter gun control laws worked, then Mexico would be a much safer country than the US.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

All rights have limits. 

 

Except voting - plenty of opposition to ID requirements or even the current ban on felons voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Duck said:


Agreed. What could go wrong?

What if we let him have a black market SA-7 as a compromise, and give him free reign in a certain small town outside Vegas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, first off, The Constituition never mentioned anything about race when counting slaves.  Second off, since slavery was banned in 1865 by The Constitution (yep, same one I'm referring to), not a single person has been counted as "3/5 of a person".  
So yes, I still do support The Constitution and its banning of slavery.  
Great. Then you'll support the changes made as a result of these massacres.

This is the fight that's coming, kiddos. Keep your head in the sand and it'll just make it easier for them to pluck your guns away while you aren't looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Great. Then you'll support the changes made as a result of these massacres.

This is the fight that's coming, kiddos. Keep your head in the sand and it'll just make it easier for them to pluck your guns away while you aren't looking.

Sure, when you repeal the 2nd Amendment.  Let me know the 38 states that will vote to ratify the change.  Besides, I thought you were a "Pro-2A" guy?  And who is going to take away our guns, exactly?   You progresives make me laugh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Sure, when you repeal the 2nd Amendment.  Let me know the 38 states that will vote to ratify the change.  Besides, I thought you were a "Pro-2A" guy?  And who is going to take away our guns, exactly?   You progresives make me laugh...

 

*Edited to remove the personal attack. Apologies* This has to be internet bluster.

 

They don't have to change the 2A. It'll be a "common sense" set of laws that just "keep us safer" and a few more of these shootings, they'll have enough supporters to get it through Congress. Maybe it'll be after the Republicans lose the House or Senate, and the President goes to a prayer ceremony for the dead and sees that we have to do something, just can't let this go unanswered...

 

It'll go into effect, and of course be challenged, all the way up to SCOTUS. Then Roberts, in his perpetual effort to "keep the court respected," makes another not-a-tax-but-a-fine decision that shocks everyone, and boom, the new law is deemed constitutional. And now, because you worship the infallibility of the Constitution, and you recognize that the Constitution says that the SCOTUS determines if something is constitutional, you support the new law with all your patriotic furor, and your AR-15s are illegal once more. It wasn't the supreme court or Constitution that made them legal again, it was a sunset clause. Don't expect that mistake to be made again.

 

There are people who are honestly (and insanely) arguing against the first amendment. And some people are listening. I don't know if it's just because you guys haven't lived anywhere else in the world (where the things we consider inalienable rights are proven quite alienable), but this shit is only as secure as the voters who believe in it. Our politicians are for sale and the media is against you, and the best you got is "Sure, when you repeal the 2nd Amendment?"

 

Furthermore, and back to the original point, if I really am this undercover progressive, I've asked questions that were met with non-sequiters and disparagement. Other conservatives have expressed concern as well. This is how you convince us to remain on your side?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a compromise.

This is an "either/or" issue.

Neither side is going to give, and to my mind, it's only been one side that's ever 'given,' so it will be either Constitutionally settled permanently, legally temporarily, or bloodily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×