My biggest pet peeve in gun debates

[Nickyjo]

They have no individual right to keep and bear arms.

Lucky them.

 

[Glitch]

True, the PLCAA was not a direct immediate response solely to the Clinton's illegal attempts to strong arm the gun industry, but they were part of the legal climate in the 90s that prompted the eventual passage of the PLCAA:

What is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?​

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was enacted in 2005 following extensive lobbying by the gun industry to shield gun manufacturers and dealers from civil litigation. The effort to enact this law was a reaction to numerous lawsuits in the early 1990s filed on behalf of more than 40 cities;

Frequently Asked Questions About Gun Industry Immunity - Center for American Progress

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevents the gun industry from being held accountable for harm caused and disincentivizes the industry from ensuring consumer safety.

www.americanprogress.org

Consider the source. American Progress is a radical leftist extremist organization. Even if they had a clue they would deliberately lie about it. That is what leftist filth always do, without exception.

 

[Glitch]

Really?

France, the UK, Canada, etc., don’t recognize the individual rights of their citizens? We are the only free society in the world? News to me, and probably them.

The UK, Canada, etc. do not recognize the individual rights of their citizens, or anyone else. The US is unique in that regard. The US is also unique in the fact that the government is limited in its powers. The governments of UK, Canada, etc. are all powerful, and can do whatever they please without restriction or limitation. The US government can't.

 

[Nickyjo]

The UK, Canada, etc. do not recognize the individual rights of their citizens, or anyone else. The US is unique in that regard. The US is also unique in the fact that the government is limited in its powers. The governments of UK, Canada, etc. are all powerful, and can do whatever they please without restriction or limitation. The US government can't.

You can choose to believe that. Just searched the topic for the UK, France and Germany. Only UK doesn’t have something like ourConstitution, but individual rights are respected there. As to govt’s doing whatever they please, FYI, the Kaiser is gone in Germany, the Queen is symbolic in the UK, and the king lost his head in France.

 

[Nickyjo]

Consider the source. American Progress is a radical leftist extremist organization. Even if they had a clue they would deliberately lie about it. That is what leftist filth always do, without exception.

You seem to come from the Donald J Trump School of Political Expression, with your “leftist filth” label. What makes me filthy?

 

[Glitch]

You can choose to believe that. Just searched the topic for the UK, France and Germany. Only UK doesn’t have something like ourConstitution, but individual rights are respected there. As to govt’s doing whatever they please, FYI, the Kaiser is gone in Germany, the Queen is symbolic in the UK, and the king lost his head in France.

No, they are not respected in the UK, or anywhere else, except the US.

The UK arrests on average 9 people every day for what they post online. The Canadian government also censors speech and dictates what may be said.

It is also not a belief, but actual fact:

Police arresting nine people a day in fight against web trolls

Nine people a day are being arrested for posting allegedly offensive messages online as police step up their campaign to combat social media hate speech.More th

www.thetimes.co.uk

Arrests for social media posts soar as police target internet trolls

Statistics released by the Metropolitan Police show more than 850 people in London were detained under the controversial Communications Act last year

www.dailymail.co.uk

Canada’s House passes internet censorship bill in late night vote - LifeSite

Bill C-10 would let the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission regulate the internet and social media in line with their regulations for broadcasting services.

www.lifesitenews.com

Canada Moves Full Force Toward Massive Internet Censorship As Bills Threaten Free Speech - Harbingers Daily

“What’s going on here without that (safeguarding user content) is actually the extreme censorship of material posted online”

harbingersdaily.com

 

[natman]

Consider the source. American Progress is a radical leftist extremist organization. Even if they had a clue they would deliberately lie about it.

I don't doubt that they would lie and distort what the PLCAA is about, but the point was that even though it was passed in 2005, it was in response to lawsuits and legal maneuvers made in the 90s (among them the Clinton's illegal threats). They didn't lie about that.

 

[Nickyjo]

No, they are not respected in the UK, or anywhere else, except the US.

The UK arrests on average 9 people every day for what they post online. The Canadian government also censors speech and dictates what may be said.

It is also not a belief, but actual fact:

Police arresting nine people a day in fight against web trolls

Nine people a day are being arrested for posting allegedly offensive messages online as police step up their campaign to combat social media hate speech.More th

www.thetimes.co.uk

Arrests for social media posts soar as police target internet trolls

Statistics released by the Metropolitan Police show more than 850 people in London were detained under the controversial Communications Act last year

www.dailymail.co.uk

Canada’s House passes internet censorship bill in late night vote - LifeSite

Bill C-10 would let the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission regulate the internet and social media in line with their regulations for broadcasting services.

www.lifesitenews.com

Canada Moves Full Force Toward Massive Internet Censorship As Bills Threaten Free Speech - Harbingers Daily

“What’s going on here without that (safeguarding user content) is actually the extreme censorship of material posted online”

harbingersdaily.com

I get it. The US is the only free country in the world. We need a wall on the northern border as well.

 

[TurtleDude]

I get it. The US is the only free country in the world. We need a wall on the northern border as well.

why are so many people who identify as "liberal" hateful of freedom?

 

[Nickyjo]

why are so many people who identify as "liberal" hateful of freedom?

I love freedom, and am proud of US’s great contributions to human freedom. I defend and explain us to Europeans and Latin Americans when they trash us. I just don’t believe that we are God’s chosen people, or in America Uber Alles. Other countries freed slaves before we did, have been less imperialistic than the US, provide a greater rate of foreign aid to poorer countries, have invaded fewer of their neighbors, and also are free. Imagine that.

 

[TurtleDude]

I love freedom, and am proud of US’s great contributions to human freedom. I defend and explain us to Europeans and Latin Americans when they trash us. I just don’t believe that we are God’s chosen people, or in America Uber Alles. Other countries freed slaves before we did, have been less imperialistic than the US, provide a greater rate of foreign aid to poorer countries, have invaded fewer of their neighbors, and also are free. Imagine that.

Yet your posts suggest you despise some of the freedoms that make us most different with eurosocialist nations that many call "Free"

 

[Nickyjo]

Yet your posts suggest you despise some of the freedoms that make us most different with eurosocialist nations that many call "Free"

What freedoms do I despise?

 

[TurtleDude]

What freedoms do I despise?

The right to keep and bear arms for one

 

[Nickyjo]

The right to keep and bear arms for one

Keep your arms. Bear them. Caress them. Sleep with them. But show us you are responsible enough to have them. It’s part of US history. We have always had restrictions on these particularly deadly weapons. As have other developed countries.

 

[TurtleDude]

Keep your arms. Bear them. Caress them. Sleep with them. But show us you are responsible enough to have them. It’s part of US history. We have always had restrictions on these particularly deadly weapons. As have other developed countries.

other countries aren't relevant. that has no value in this discussion. and you want restrictions that impede objectively non-harmful activities, I support restrictions that penalize malum per se activity

 

[Nickyjo]

other countries aren't relevant. that has no value in this discussion. and you want restrictions that impede objectively non-harmful activities, I support restrictions that penalize malum per se activity

Other countries are indeed relevant, as we can (gasp!) learn from them, admittedly an unAmerican position on my part, suggesting that we don’t know everything.

 

[TurtleDude]

Other countries are indeed relevant, as we can (gasp!) learn from them, admittedly an unAmerican position.

wrong-we have constitutional rights-they do not. Trying to pretend their laws would work here is the epitome of stupidity. Tell us what country's laws you want here? keep in mind your prior statements of not wanting to ban anything

 

[Nickyjo]

wrong-we have constitutional rights-they do not. Trying to pretend their laws would work here is the epitome of stupidity. Tell us what country's laws you want here? keep in mind your prior statements of not wanting to ban anything

What makes you think they don’t have rights? What laws that they have wouldn’t work in the US? Of course, being perfect as you suggest, the US has nothing to learn from others. There’s that. American exceptionalism. We are chosen by God. Nothing we do is wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

What makes you think they don’t have rights?

we aren't talking about rights other than firearms ownership.

 

[Nickyjo]

we aren't talking about rights other than firearms ownership.

And firearms have been regulated throughout our history.

 

[TurtleDude]

And firearms have been regulated throughout our history.

yep, now tell us what you want in the USA and what it would do to help

and tell us what foreign laws you want imposed here. I will be back latter this day to respond

 

[Nickyjo]

yep, now tell us what you want in the USA and what it would do to help

and tell us what foreign laws you want imposed here. I will be back latter this day to respond

I would like possession or use of guns to be governed much as we do licenses to drive cars, another tool we regulate. I would want, for example, there to be limits on magazine capacity, prohibition of bullets that expand upon impact. I would want guns to be required to be stored safely. In short, I would like some of the things the NRA supported before they freaked out after viewing the legislation proposed following the King and RFK assassinations in 1968, before they became a lobby for the gun industry. Other countries remain free while controlling guns. We persist in our carnage, gun violence that has a friend of mine confined to a wheelchair for decades.

 

[Glitch]

I get it. The US is the only free country in the world. We need a wall on the northern border as well.

Considering that the last 21 out of the last 27 terrorists to attack the US on its own soil came across the Canadian border, and not the Mexican border, it would certainly seem to me to be more prudent to improve the security along the northern US border. But we all know how fond leftists are with killing Americans and supporting terrorism, so that will never happen.

 

[Rucker61]

I would like possession or use of guns to be governed much as we do licenses to drive cars, another tool we regulate. I would want, for example, there to be limits on magazine capacity, prohibition of bullets that expand upon impact. I would want guns to be required to be stored safely

None of these are similar to how we regulate cars.

If we treated guns like cars:

1. There would be no background check to buy one.
2. There would be no limits on size, capacity, power or number owned.
3. Felons could own them.
4. 16 year old kids could take them to school.

Is this really what you want?

. In short, I would like some of the things the NRA supported before they freaked out after viewing the legislation proposed following the King and RFK assassinations in 1968, before they became a lobby for the gun industry.

I'd like to see the cites that show that the NRA supported any of the items you listed.

Other countries remain free while controlling guns. We persist in our carnage, gun violence that has a friend of mine confined to a wheelchair for decades.

It's not about other countries remaining free. It's about what laws passed in the US would be Constitutional, effective and enforceable.

PS: All hunting ammunition expands upon impact.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would like possession or use of guns to be governed much as we do licenses to drive cars, another tool we regulate. I would want, for example, there to be limits on magazine capacity, prohibition of bullets that expand upon impact. I would want guns to be required to be stored safely. In short, I would like some of the things the NRA supported before they freaked out after viewing the legislation proposed following the King and RFK assassinations in 1968, before they became a lobby for the gun industry. Other countries remain free while controlling guns. We persist in our carnage, gun violence that has a friend of mine confined to a wheelchair for decades.

this proves why we don't take anti gun arguments seriously, your arguments seethe in ignorance. Bullets that expand on impact are universally carried by police officers and armed civilians because they have better stopping power (but are no more lethal) than FMJ bullets which often require more shots to stop an assailant. They also require less shots to quickly take game. Why should magazines be limited when those disobey laws about misusing guns will ignore those laws---you clearly want to handicap honest citizens. and you have proven that if a 10 round magazine ban doesn't work, you will want a 5 round ban

the car idiocy has been destroyed and you really don't want guns treated like cars because that means a 16 year old can buy a car and operate it in every state of the land, and that we can own cars that are far faster than anything the police have. Plus you don't need a license or background check to buy own or possess a car and my driver's license is good in every city, state and town