I have no problem with you defending yourself with a firearm. I just think that some of the same rules should apply to guns and their owners that apply to cars and their owners.This doesn't have anything to do with rights. You don't have the right to be included or employed.
Then talk to people on your side of the political spectrum and tell them to quit making out like it does. Do you know how many times one of you leftists have said to me how can you vote conservative you're gay. As though I should vote for the people that want me to be bashed? If I'm armed to the teeth I don't get bashed.
No I'm just like everyone else quit treating me like I'm special it's creepy.
Now that all my rides are equal and the only people actually agitating against them are leftists it's time to stop.
Again if I carry a gun and someone tries to bash me I can just shoot them you don't want me to be able to do that you advocate against my rights more than anyone else. Should I interpret this as you want me to get bashed perhaps by criminals that are more likely to carry guns illegally?
You absolutely do not support my rights you are against them.
Okay again it's strictly from the left wing that I hear people telling me that the Christians are coming after me next if they stop creepy ass child molester doctors from castrating kids and pretending it's gender-affirming care. That's too balkanize me and with these transgender people that have absolutely nothing to do with me and some of them are profoundly homophobic to divide me against whatever Christian group you don't like or just conservatives in general.
And you specifically in this forum have advocated against my rights, my rights to use a firearm to defend myself so you want me to be bashed or at the mercy of whoever wants me to be bashed.
I dont understand it because you haven't explained how me giving up my house magically makes it native American land. I dont operate based on your fan fiction. I live in the real world where your argument has to actually make sense.
Maybe you just can't read. I said I support paying reparations to black Americans despite being black myself and my family not being here at the time of segregation because America owes black Americans (and native Americans) and I'm an American. Its typical of right wingers to not be able to explain their arguments and make up things about their opponents arguments because you have no good ones.
What are you talking about way more laws apply to gun owners than car owners.I have no problem with you defending yourself with a firearm. I just think that some of the same rules should apply to guns and their owners that apply to cars and their owners.
I can't even judge that. I was a Republican until 2003, entirely because of the pro-life movement. I still lament the utter sludge that the movement has turned into. They and the 2nd Iraq war turned me solid blue. At this point all I can say about my pro-life stance is artificial wombs is going to be the only way out. That's all the Republican I have left in me. But you couldn't kill me and bury me next to the kind of "pro-lifers" running the show today. Everything ELSE about the Democrats is great for me.Its complicated. In my mid to late teens I started off at the Marxist end of the political spectrum. This was after I picked up a book, the ABC of Communism, by two tough Bolsheviks: Nicolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhenskyii. I had an epiphany no less than that of Saul of Tarsus on his way to Damascus. The book appeared to have all the answers, and all the solutions! Workers are suckers. The capitalists get everything. Everything is set up to line the pockets of the capitalists. Religion blinds the suffering worker in promising him an illusory heaven, instead of fair wages on earth. Even nationalism sets up wars that kill workers by the thousands, while lining the pockets of capitalists of both sides. Workers, get smart. Workers, unite. Evict the capitalists. Set up a utopia of communal property and fraternal living conditions.
For a few months I was insufferable until it wore off. Then I migrated from Marxist left to lets call it the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, This was the 80's, no Bernie Sanders then. Maybe he was but he did not cross my radar. At the time I considered it an unfortunate tragedy that Carter lost to Reagan. I did not like Reagan at all when he was in office. I only got to admire Reagan much later, post mortem Still I was moving towards the Democratic center. I rooted for Mike Dukakis, he lost. What a string of loses! Carter lost. Walter Mondale lost! Mike Dukakis lost! Keep in mind I wasnt into politics that much when Carter won. So when was a Democrat gonna win?
Then Clinton won. Broke the spell. But at that point I can say I had migrated from the Democratic right to the Republican left. I was glad Clinton won, but I had also come to like Bush Sr; maybe his brilliant handling of Desert Storm.
By mid of Bill Clinton's 1st term I was solidly in the Republican left.
I will say Bush Jr has been in my lifetime the President I got attached to the most
The above should answer your question some. I identify as conservative quite alright; but I wont say I did quite shed the idealism inherent in liberalism
I have no problem with you defending yourself with a firearm. I just think that some of the same rules should apply to guns and their owners that apply to cars and their owners.
Not at all. If you purchase a gun, you should have to pass a written test and test-fire it, much as you have to do when getting a driver’s license. You should also have to store it safely without compromising your access to it, much as one cannot park a vehicle in the middle of the street.What are you talking about way more laws apply to gun owners than car owners.
Are you suggesting that gun owners be subject to some sort of equivalent to traffic code? If you do that's the interfere with the right to keep and bear arms there's no reason to enforce such laws on people other than to screw with their ability to defend themselves.
So like I said and you confirmed you want to interfere with my rights. You just admitted to it. This is why I can't vote for your party it's insane.
I have no problem with you defending yourself with a firearm. I just think that some of the same rules should apply to guns and their owners that apply to cars and their owners.
Sure. The democrats are all in when it comes to tokens.
So you want to interfere with the right for no real reasonNot at all. If you purchase a gun, you should have to pass a written test and test-fire it, much as you have to do when getting a driver’s license.
Another way in which you want to interfere with the right for no reason at all.You should also have to store it safely without compromising your access to it, much as one cannot park a vehicle in the middle of the street.
But take heart, to use the cliche, “common sense gun control”
But the people who say this have no sense at all look at you. You're trying to treat owning a gun like operating a vehicle in the roadway which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.is going nowhere despite most Americans
The majority of people with sense trumps imbeciles that pretend nonsense is common sense.- even NRA members- supporting lots of the proposed measures. The gun manufactures control the NRA, and the single issue pro-gun population, tho a minority, trumps common sense.
What do you mean? I want to interfere with the right so you know what you are doing and can show it to someone, same as with driving. We “infringe” the right to bear arms a lot in the US we just differ on how much. I assume you and I agree with restrictions about carrying a gun on to a commercial aircraft or into the House of Representatives.So you want to interfere with the right for no real reason
Safe storage in your home can prevent your kid from getting the gun. That’s one reason. It presumably would prevent a burglar from finding it. Another reason.Another way in which you want to interfere with the right for no reason at all.
Pick a different analogy if you wish. But vehicles and guns are useful tools, but can be dangerous when operated without knowledge.But the people who say this have no sense at all look at you. You're trying to treat owning a gun like operating a vehicle in the roadway which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Correct, as your right to bear arms is not absolute. I don’t want you living across the street with a machine gun mounted on your garage roof aimed at my house.The majority of people with sense trumps imbeciles that pretend nonsense is common sense.
Again you want to take away my rights. This nutty crap you came up with makes no sense at all.
You are absolutely gunning for my rights.
You support laws to interfere with my rights that's what I mean.What do you mean?
It's not the same as driving owning a gun. Driving is an act where you necessarily put everyone on the road in eminent danger. That's not the case with owning a gun or even carrying a gun you can make the case that that would be for firing a gun or pointing a gun that somebody but both of those things are illegal outside of very particular circumstances.I want to interfere with the right so you know what you are doing and can show it to someone, same as with driving.
The infringement must make sense and serve a purpose Other than to just interfere for the sake of interfering.We “infringe” the right to bear arms a lot in the US we just differ on how much.
A commercial aircraft makes no sense to me if I can carry one on a bus went on an aircraft? House of Representatives court cases it's reasonable to restrict firearms in those situations.I assume you and I agree with restrictions about carrying a gun on to a commercial aircraft or into the House of Representatives.
Save storage to me sounds like ambiguous language what the hell does that mean? And it seems like it's just a way to set up punishing people for exercising the rights.Safe storage in your home can prevent your kid from getting the gun.
All of the guns I own collectively are worth less than a safe so I'm not going to buy that if someone steals it I'll just replace the firearm.That’s one reason. It presumably would prevent a burglar from finding it. Another reason.
Start with an analogy that makes the slightest bit of sense.Pick a different analogy if you wish.
I argue neither one of them are dangerous. It's your behavior that makes them dangerous.But vehicles and guns are useful tools, but can be dangerous when operated without knowledge.
That's not an excuse to come up with Draconian punitive interferences strictly to restrict the right.Correct, as your right to bear arms is not absolute.
That's already illegal.I don’t want you living across the street with a machine gun mounted on your garage roof aimed at my house.
People under the age of 18 should be supervised by an adult, if you're consuming alcohol you shouldn't be carrying a firearm. Firing them outside of a very specific circumstance should be illegal. If you're hunting on public land you should have to pass a hunter safety course. They should be prohibited from courtrooms.But let’s put the ball in your court. What restrictions on guns do you accept or advocate for?
Your rights are infringed all the time in various ways, as they are not absolute.You support laws to interfere with my rights that's what I mean.
Right, so requiring you to take a simple test, like a driving test where the booklet gives you the answers beforehand, providing instructions for safe operation upon purchase of a weapon is useful and is interference with a purpose.It's not the same as driving owning a gun. Driving is an act where you necessarily put everyone on the road in eminent danger. That's not the case with owning a gun or even carrying a gun you can make the case that that would be for firing a gun or pointing a gun that somebody but both of those things are illegal outside of very particular circumstances.
The infringement must make sense and serve a purpose Other than to just interfere for the sake of interfering.
Not too many buses are hijacked and crashed into buildings, tho to be fair 9/11 involved box cutters, also prohibited on airplanes.A commercial aircraft makes no sense to me if I can carry one on a bus went on an aircraft? House of Representatives court cases it's reasonable to restrict firearms in those situations.
You have to take both to be able to drive legally on public roads.But having to take a shooting test and are written test is the stupidest thing I've ever heard and has nothing to do with that.
Save storage to me sounds like ambiguous language what the hell does that mean? And it seems like it's just a way to set up punishing people for exercising the rights.
All of the guns I own collectively are worth less than a safe so I'm not going to buy that if someone steals it I'll just replace the firearm.
When you carry a gun you are necessarily putting everyone around you in imminent danger. That’s why you can’t carry them into the ballpark, for example.Start with an analogy that makes the slightest bit of sense.
When you operate your vehicle you are necessarily putting everyone in imminent danger around you. That is not an analog by any means of owning a firearm or carrying one. It's an analogy for just firing one off stupidly but that's illegal you cannot do that at all. Even pointing at somebody with no real cards is illegal.
Good. As I said, we both agree on infringement, just to a different degree.I argue neither one of them are dangerous. It's your behavior that makes them dangerous.
That's not an excuse to come up with Draconian punitive interferences strictly to restrict the right.
The infringements that exist have to make sense. The restrictions you're proposing don't you have failed at making them make sense.
Because of this you want to restrict my rights for no reason at all. If you had a reason you could explain it you don't.
That's already illegal.
People under the age of 18 should be supervised by an adult, if you're consuming alcohol you shouldn't be carrying a firearm. Firing them outside of a very specific circumstance should be illegal. If you're hunting on public land you should have to pass a hunter safety course. They should be prohibited from courtrooms.
The reason why we make you take a test and get a license to drive on roadways is because the act of driving is necessary putting everyone on the roadways life at risk.Your rights are infringed all the time in various ways, as they are not absolute.
Right, so requiring you to take a simple test, like a driving test where the booklet gives you the answers beforehand, providing instructions for safe operation upon purchase of a weapon is useful and is interference with a purpose.
Not too many buses are hijacked and crashed into buildings, tho to be fair 9/11 involved box cutters, also prohibited on airplanes.
You have to take both to be able to drive legally on public roads.
When you carry a gun you are necessarily putting everyone around you in imminent danger. That’s why you can’t carry them into the ballpark, for example.
Good. As I said, we both agree on infringement, just to a different degree.
That the US used to restrict firearms for decades before the Supreme Court’s ruling, which ruling laid open the possibility of restricting guns in some manner. I’ve pointed out on DP that the most famous gunfight in our history, in Tombstone, was “triggered” by an issue related to gun control, with the Earps and company rightly or wrongly wanting to take guns away from the other guys. (I’ve thought that history has been told from the Earps point of view because Wyatt lived a long life, spending years in California and perhaps some influence on Hollywood’s telling of the OK Corral fight.)
I recommend once again the book “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms,”
by Adam Winkler. There is plenty there to show how gun control both was lonstanding part of US law as well as to show quite the opposite.
Driving on roadways is the equivalent of carrying a gun on you. If everything goes right with your decisions and those of others, all is well. If not, bad things can happen. We have so many more gun deaths in the US because we have so many more guns. We also have a higher number of rate if road deaths presumably because we drive more than in some other, comparable countries.The reason why we make you take a test and get a license to drive on roadways is because the act of driving is necessary putting everyone on the roadways life at risk.
The way you put people's life at risk with the gun is pulling it out of your holster and just firing it that's illegal to do there's no license for that so they're way more restricted you can't use it at all unless there are some very specific circumstances. I would argue threatening to use your firearmine is a problem and is illegal.
So guns are already way more restricted than cars.
No it's not. How does having a gun in a holster place someone in imminent danger?Driving on roadways is the equivalent of carrying a gun on you.
Like a magical force takes over your gun and pulls it out and fires it? How does your written test compensate for that?If everything goes right with your decisions and those of others, all is well. If not, bad things can happen.
That's been debunked completely try something better.We have so many more gun deaths in the US because we have so many more guns.
I'm concerned with rights.We also have a higher number of rate if road deaths presumably because we drive more than in some other, comparable countries.
Try walking into a supermarket, on to a plane, into city hall with your gun in a holster. The reason that someone might call the cops is…?No it's not. How does having a gun in a holster place someone in imminent danger?
The written test is to make sure you know about gun safety rules. Remember, like at the DMV, we’re giving you a booklet with info that can make you pass the test. Well, a passer by could grab the gun, ILike a magical force takes over your gun and pulls it out and fires it? How does your written test compensate for that?
Me too. The right to go to a ball game knowing people are screened for weapons, to feel comfortable getting on a flight knowing that TSA is doing its job. Also, why do you think that we are told on flights not to line up for the restroom up front near the cabin? Simple safety measures. As I said in another post, we all accept and support infringements on the right to bear arms, we just differ on which ones.That's been debunked completely try something better.
I'm concerned with rights.
I walked in the supermarkets all the time with a gun. Nobody's ever called the police on me why would they what are they afraid of?Try walking into a supermarket, on to a plane, into city hall with your gun in a holster. The reason that someone might call the cops is…?
It's four rules you need to test to help you remember four rules what's the matter with you?The written test is to make sure you know about gun safety rules.
There's like 9 million traffic laws.Remember, like at the DMV, we’re giving you a booklet with info that can make you pass the test. Well, a passer by could grab the gun, I
Number one first and foremost you have no right whatsoever to feel comfortable. Number two TSA is absolutely terrible at their job. Medical program was just a way for George Bush to employ nincompoops and pedophiles.Me too. The right to go to a ball game knowing people are screened for weapons, to feel comfortable getting on a flight knowing that TSA is doing its job.
Again you have to have a legitimate reason to infringe on rights. And all of this blather and all of your postings on this forum entirely you've never had a single legitimate reason.Also, why do you think that we are told on flights not to line up for the restroom up front near the cabin? Simple safety measures. As I said in another post, we all accept and support infringements on the right to bear arms, we just differ on which ones.
So you'll continue to happily benefit from conquest and genocide. Got it.
It's on you to explain how your suggestion gets me to my political goals and you cant either through lack of intelligence or because we both know this isn't a real argument.You say you support a lot of things. Your actions say otherwise.
A run of the milll illogical republican with an argument that makes no sense and that they themselves can't explain.A run of the milll, do-nothing lolberal.
Ok, now try walking into city hall.I walked in the supermarkets all the time with a gun. Nobody's ever called the police on me why would they what are they afraid of?
If that’s all there are, fine with me.It's four rules you need to test to help you remember four rules what's the matter with you?
They are not all in the booklet you are tested on.There's like 9 million traffic laws.
So all the other laws in all the other countries that seem to have far fewer gun deaths are besides the point?Number one first and foremost you have no right whatsoever to feel comfortable. Number two TSA is absolutely terrible at their job. Medical program was just a way for George Bush to employ nincompoops and pedophiles.
Again you have to have a legitimate reason to infringe on rights. And all of this blather and all of your postings on this forum entirely you've never had a single legitimate reason.
Explain why people would freak out if I walked into the grocery store first.Ok, now try walking into city hall.
So your fear is based on ignorance. Just Google the four rules of gun safety and read them then you're educated.If that’s all there are, fine with me.
Because there's more than four.They are not all in the booklet you are tested on.
You're still not making a point. How are the absolutely brain dead ideas you presented here going to reduce death? Unless of course the idea is strictly to interfere with the right or no other reason than to interfere with it.So all the other laws in all the other countries that seem to have far fewer gun deaths are besides the point?
Ten people killed in grocery store in Boulder Colorado. You can search and find more killings.Explain why people would freak out if I walked into the grocery store first.
Yet somehow we used to control guns more than we do with no loss of freedom, and similar countries seem to remain free with fewer guns, more controls.So your fear is based on ignorance. Just Google the four rules of gun safety and read them then you're educated.
Because there's more than four.
You're still not making a point. How are the absolutely brain dead ideas you presented here going to reduce death? Unless of course the idea is strictly to interfere with the right or no other reason than to interfere with it.
Is that because somebody was carrying a gun there or was it because someone was shooting people with it.Ten people killed in grocery store in Boulder Colorado.
What would be the purpose of that?You can search and find more killings.
No they don't.Yet somehow we used to control guns more than we do with no loss of freedom, and similar countries seem to remain free with fewer guns, more controls.
Can you rationalize your desire for control other than just to have control over people?We might as well end this, (unless you want to respond to the above), in agreement that you believe in fewer controls on guns than I do.
You asked a question about why people might freak out if you carried a gun into a grocery store. I tell you why and your above response comes. Guess what? Before the guy in Boulder started shooting he was carrying the gun.Is that because somebody was carrying a gun there or was it because someone was shooting people with it.
To learn about other grocery store shooting incidents.How does carrying a gun means shooting people with it? I've carried a gun for 20 years and never shot a single person
What would be the purpose of that?
O really. What are the homicide rates in comparable countries?No they don't.
No the desire is to do the same thing we do when we limit access to prescription drugs, have speed limits on highways, control auto emissions, put safety features in cars, close polluted beaches, regulate cigarette ads, etc. We do those things to reduce potential harm.Can you rationalize your desire for control other than just to have control over people?
And you talked about someone going full madman and murdering a bunch of people murdering a bunch of people and carrying a firm or too extremely different things.You asked a question about why people might freak out if you carried a gun into a grocery store.
Yeah because your reason why is insane.I tell you why and your above response comes.
You know what hundreds of thousands of people carry guns every day and they don't go murdering a bunch of people.Guess what? Before the guy in Boulder started shooting he was carrying the gun.
Learn what about them how paranoid people think everyone with a gun is just a madman about to blow everyone away?To learn about other grocery store shooting incidents.
They don't remain free.O really. What are the homicide rates in comparable countries?
Quit blurting out lists and explain and no uncertain terms if you can do that you're not ever going to get whatever stupid crazy laws you dream up past.No the desire is to do the same thing we do when we limit access to prescription drugs, have speed limits on highways, control auto emissions, put safety features in cars, close polluted beaches, regulate cigarette ads, etc. We do those things to reduce potential harm.
All you're getting is your own fantasy because you cant deal with the irrationality of your argument. You have yet to explain how me doing what you want would result in Native Americans receiving justice for the injustices done to them. I on the other hand can easily explain how supporting candidates and policies that intend to do that can actually accomplish that goal.So you'll continue to happily benefit from conquest and genocide. Got it.
You don't have any clue about what my actions are. This is just more fantasy. The only thing you know for certain is that I haven't bought into your silly premise because youve been unable to explain it, rationally.You say you support a lot of things. Your actions say otherwise.
A run of the milll Republican who isn't intelligent enough to understand that fantasy arguments aren't rational arguments.A run of the milll, do-nothing lolberal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?