Conservatives tried to hijack Juneteenth Day by claiming Republicans freed the slaves

[Nickyjo]

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 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.

 

[tharock220]

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.

So you'll continue to happily benefit from conquest and genocide. Got it.

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.

You say you support a lot of things. Your actions say otherwise.

A run of the milll, do-nothing lolberal.

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

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.

 

[GhostFence]

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 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.

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

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.

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.

But take heart, to use the cliche, “common sense gun control” is going nowhere despite most Americans - 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.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

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.

How about the same rules that apply to gun owners should apply to car owners?

 

[hooligan]

Sure. The democrats are all in when it comes to tokens.

Whereas the Republicans can't even bring themselves to allow tokenism? I'm not sure what your argument is here, in context.

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

So you want to interfere with the right for no real reason

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.

Another way in which you want to interfere with the right for no reason at all.

But take heart, to use the cliche, “common sense gun control”

is going nowhere despite most Americans

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.

- 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.

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.

 

[Nickyjo]

So you want to interfere with the right for no real reason

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.

Another way in which you want to interfere with the right for no reason at all.

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.

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.

Pick a different analogy if you wish. But vehicles and guns are useful tools, but can be dangerous when operated without knowledge.

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.

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.
But let’s put the ball in your court. What restrictions on guns do you accept or advocate for?

 

[CLAX1911]

What do you mean?

You support laws to interfere with my rights that's what I 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.

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.

We “infringe” the right to bear arms a lot in the US we just differ on how much.

The infringement must make sense and serve a purpose Other than to just interfere for the sake of interfering.

I assume you and I agree with restrictions about carrying a gun on to a commercial aircraft or into the House of Representatives.

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.

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.

Safe storage in your home can prevent your kid from getting the gun.

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.

That’s one reason. It presumably would prevent a burglar from finding it. Another reason.

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.

Pick a different analogy if you wish.

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.

But vehicles and guns are useful tools, but can be dangerous when operated without knowledge.

I argue neither one of them are dangerous. It's your behavior that makes them dangerous.

Correct, as your right to bear arms is not absolute.

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.

I don’t want you living across the street with a machine gun mounted on your garage roof aimed at my house.

That's already illegal.

But let’s put the ball in your court. What restrictions on guns do you accept or advocate for?

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.

 

[Nickyjo]

You support laws to interfere with my rights that's what I mean.

Your rights are infringed all the time in various ways, as they are not absolute.

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.

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.

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.

Not too many buses are hijacked and crashed into buildings, tho to be fair 9/11 involved box cutters, also prohibited on airplanes.

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.

You have to take both to be able to drive legally on public roads.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

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.

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

Driving on roadways is the equivalent of carrying a gun on you.

No it's not. How does having a gun in a holster place someone in imminent danger?

If everything goes right with your decisions and those of others, all is well. If not, bad things can happen.

Like a magical force takes over your gun and pulls it out and fires it? How does your written test compensate for that?

We have so many more gun deaths in the US because we have so many more guns.

That's been debunked completely try something better.

We also have a higher number of rate if road deaths presumably because we drive more than in some other, comparable countries.

I'm concerned with rights.

 

[Nickyjo]

No it's not. How does having a gun in a holster place someone in imminent danger?

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…?

Like a magical force takes over your gun and pulls it out and fires it? How does your written test compensate for that?

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, I

That's been debunked completely try something better.

I'm concerned with rights.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

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…?

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?

The written test is to make sure you know about gun safety rules.

It's four rules you need to test to help you remember four rules what's the matter with you?

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

There's like 9 million traffic laws.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Master Debator]

So you'll continue to happily benefit from conquest and genocide. Got it.

Not conceding to your fantasy doesn't say anything about me. That's not how logic works.

If you had bothered to ask me instead of engaging in that frail fantasy I would of told you that I happily support reparations including the creation of Native American nations (plural) akin to Israel with the full backing and support of the American government and it's military but then again I also support the same for the creation of a Black American nation. Carve this ****er up and divide its wealth, that's fine by me.

You say you support a lot of things. Your actions say otherwise.

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.

A run of the milll, do-nothing lolberal.

A run of the milll illogical republican with an argument that makes no sense and that they themselves can't explain.

 

[Nickyjo]

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?

Ok, now try walking into city hall.

It's four rules you need to test to help you remember four rules what's the matter with you?

If that’s all there are, fine with me.

There's like 9 million traffic laws.

They are not all in the booklet you are tested on.

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.

So all the other laws in all the other countries that seem to have far fewer gun deaths are besides the point?

 

[CLAX1911]

Ok, now try walking into city hall.

Explain why people would freak out if I walked into the grocery store first.

If that’s all there are, fine with me.

So your fear is based on ignorance. Just Google the four rules of gun safety and read them then you're educated.

They are not all in the booklet you are tested on.

Because there's more than four.

So all the other laws in all the other countries that seem to have far fewer gun deaths are besides the point?

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.

 

[Nickyjo]

Explain why people would freak out if I walked into the grocery store first.

Ten people killed in grocery store in Boulder Colorado. You can search and find more killings.

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.

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.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ten people killed in grocery store in Boulder Colorado.

Is that because somebody was carrying a gun there or was it because someone was shooting people with it.

How does carrying a gun means shooting people with it? I've carried a gun for 20 years and never shot a single person

You can search and find more killings.

What would be the purpose of that?

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.

No they don't.

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.

Can you rationalize your desire for control other than just to have control over people?

 

[Nickyjo]

Is that because somebody was carrying a gun there or was it because someone was shooting people with it.

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.

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?

To learn about other grocery store shooting incidents.

No they don't.

O really. What are the homicide rates in comparable countries?

Can you rationalize your desire for control other than just to have control over people?

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

You asked a question about why people might freak out if you carried a gun into a grocery store.

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.

I tell you why and your above response comes.

Yeah because your reason why is insane.

Guess what? Before the guy in Boulder started shooting he was carrying the gun.

You know what hundreds of thousands of people carry guns every day and they don't go murdering a bunch of people.

To learn about other grocery store shooting incidents.

Learn what about them how paranoid people think everyone with a gun is just a madman about to blow everyone away?

O really. What are the homicide rates in comparable countries?

They don't remain free.

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.

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.

They have to be rational you can't just say oh well we regulate roadways well yeah we regulate roadways because you necessarily put people in danger. What we control prescription drugs yeah because taking a prescription drug can kill you.

Firing a gun in a controlled environment is only permissible and a very narrow set of circumstances so it's way more controlled than traffic. And firing gun unless you really have no idea what you're doing and have never seen a gun on a movie before it won't kill you.

Quit with the what about is some crap and get rational please that's all I'm asking.

 

[Master Debator]

So you'll continue to happily benefit from conquest and genocide. Got it.

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.

You say you support a lot of things. Your actions say otherwise.

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.

A run of the milll, do-nothing lolberal.

A run of the milll Republican who isn't intelligent enough to understand that fantasy arguments aren't rational arguments.