“It is satire,” Jim tells Newsweek during a phone conversation on Tuesday morning. “The thing I try to be really clear about is: I’m not saying [Republicans] should have guns at their convention while I think they shouldn’t. I think they should have guns at their convention because I think that’s the only way to live in accordance with the principles they have tried to make us all live with.”
. . . Jim, a public health worker who says he is “absolutely” a gun control advocate, is based on the West Coast. He wonders why “the Republicans acquiesce so docilely” to the Secret Service simply denying them the right to have guns at their convention. In the petition, Jim quotes all three Republican candidates—Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich—each of whom have said they’d eliminate “gun-free zones” in areas such as schools and military facilities
I was referring to gun control in general. You're new so (welcome), we've had this discussion for a long long time around here. I have used that part of the Heller decision countless times to inform gun advocates that the second amendment is open to gun control, and at every turn, I've been told that I don't get what Scalia was saying and that I'm too dumb to understand the constitution. But, all of a sudden, my own argument makes perfect sense.
The only paradox here is your dishonest straw man. Just like your appeal to emotion that you ran away from in the other thread.
No one is falling for your bait and switch.
Thanks for the welcome
And I understand the difficult of talking about gun control. I don't even want to do things like ban assault rifles, reduce magazine sizes, etc. But every time I get called a moron who 'doesn't know how the Constitution works'.
You said:Uh, noooo, it depends on gun control period.
governments have POWERS not rights.
and infringements are unconstitutional at a federal level. punishing people who harm others with firearms is not an infringement and is a proper exercise of governmental power
Incase anyone missed it, the petition was started by an ultra liberal - with undoubtedly ulterior motives. I'll try to find the link. I saw it earlier this afternoon on Washington Times.
I'm reminded of the lesson of such foolish statements. A man takes a bucket and dips it into the sea. Looking in he sees nothing but sea water and proclaims look no fish in the bucket, there are no fish in the sea.
Argument by extension.
such as infringing on one's right when they are required to locate in a 'free speech zone' to speak freely
or disallowing someone to vote because they did not bring a ID card with them
those kinds of rights that cannot be infringed?
Simple:what???
If you think someone should have to produce ID to buy a firearm why are you upset with someone having to show an ID to vote?
Simple:
The right to vote is means for liberals to gain and and retain power; the right to keep and bear arms limits that power.
Our of all the millions of liberals,m there -has- to be a few honest ones.years ago a far left student I knew in college told the Yale Political Union that he had quit his membership in the ACLU
they asked him why
he said (and this was a rare bit of honesty from what we normally see from the far left) that the ACLU promotes "rights" that the left uses to attack the status quo and capitalism but it tends to avoid promoting rights that maintain the status quo or are cherished by conservatives (gun rights, or the right of assembly or association-or non-association )
Our of all the millions of liberals,m there -has- to be a few honest ones.
anticipated you would be at a loss for words upon reading my prior postwhat???
let's examine what you had to 'say'If you think someone should have to produce ID to buy a firearm why are you upset with someone having to show an ID to vote?
anticipated you would be at a loss for words upon reading my prior post
let's examine what you had to 'say'
if someone is required to prove their eligibility to vote
would it not also be just as reasonable for them to be required to prove their eligibility to bear arms
You are not answering the question. You suggested that having to show an ID violated some alleged right to vote. I am asking you if you complained about making a voter show an ID why don't you complain about someone showing an ID to buy a gun.
I don't think showing an ID violates either right btw even though the right to buy a gun is more constitutionally protected than the right to vote
I didn't see an answer to the question:how so?
I didn't see an answer to the question:
If you think someone should have to produce ID to buy a firearm why are you upset with someone having to show an ID to vote?
Apparently, you disagree with the need to show an ID to vote.exactly my point
Apparently, you disagree with the need to show an ID to vote.
Why then do you agree with the need to show an ID to buy a gun?
There it is, right there.
Where do you get that this is the position of conservatives?
"As reported by CBS and Quartz, who on Monday spoke with the individual taking credit for the online campaign which now has over 50,000 signatures, the shadowy figure is a true-blue Democrat who intends to vote for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming election." - Campaign 2016: Surprising source of GOP convention guns petition - CBS News
Go figure.
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?