PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Rush on May 24, 2021, 06:59:17 PM
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/constitutional-carry-heads-to-texas-governor-greg-abbotts-desk-poised-to-become-law/ar-AAKlett
-
Love it!
-
"epidemic of gun violence" (quoting one of the whiny moroons in the article)
such ignorance is disturbing.
-
Right to bear arms. If we're going to ignore the stuff about a militia, bearing arms means carrying them with you. Can't prevent folks form doing it, it's in the Constitution. You guys should keep in mind that I myself could move to Texas and carry a concealed weapon. Unintended consequences and all that.
-
Right to bear arms. If we're going to ignore the stuff about a militia, bearing arms means carrying them with you. Can't prevent folks form doing it, it's in the Constitution. You guys should keep in mind that I myself could move to Texas and carry a concealed weapon. Unintended consequences and all that.
You can do that in Ohio open carry or go to sheriff's office and get ccw permit in 2 weeks.
-
Right to bear arms. If we're going to ignore the stuff about a militia, bearing arms means carrying them with you. Can't prevent folks form doing it, it's in the Constitution. You guys should keep in mind that I myself could move to Texas and carry a concealed weapon. Unintended consequences and all that.
Go to a range and learn to shoot and operate your gun and I'd have no issue with you carrying a weapon. At flyins and on motorcycle rides you might be surprised at the number of people that are armed.
-
Right to bear arms. If we're going to ignore the stuff about a militia, bearing arms means carrying them with you. Can't prevent folks form doing it, it's in the Constitution. You guys should keep in mind that I myself could move to Texas and carry a concealed weapon. Unintended consequences and all that.
Do you understand the difference between introductory/explanation and a restriction?
-
Right to bear arms. If we're going to ignore the stuff about a militia, bearing arms means carrying them with you. Can't prevent folks form doing it, it's in the Constitution. You guys should keep in mind that I myself could move to Texas and carry a concealed weapon. Unintended consequences and all that.
Have your ever read anything about the Second Amendment?
The Militia clause is a prefatory clause that announces a purpose, not a limitation, of the operative clause.
Even Wiki gives you a decent digest of the District of Columbia v Heller decision. You should read it.
And why would you being able to carry concealed in Texas be an unintended consequence? That’s an intended consequence if I’ve ever heard one.
-
(http://)
-
Right to bear arms. If we're going to ignore the stuff about a militia, bearing arms means carrying them with you. Can't prevent folks form doing it, it's in the Constitution. You guys should keep in mind that I myself could move to Texas and carry a concealed weapon. Unintended consequences and all that.
What unintended consequence? If you came to Texas and you and I were to go out to a restaurant together, I would feel more, not less, secure if you carried a concealed firearm.
I’d be armed too of course but I don’t think our conversation would come down to a gunfight.
-
Right to bear arms. If we're going to ignore the stuff about a militia, bearing arms means carrying them with you. Can't prevent folks form doing it, it's in the Constitution. You guys should keep in mind that I myself could move to Texas and carry a concealed weapon. Unintended consequences and all that.
Wow.
Read between the lines. Let it soak in.
That is an incredible statement of self loathing.
-
Wow.
Read between the lines. Let it soak in.
That is an incredible statement of self loathing.
That’s a good term for the affliction that liberals can’t trust themselves, and certainly can’t trust anyone else to exercise their freedoms.
-
That’s a good term for the affliction that liberals can’t trust themselves, and certainly can’t trust anyone else to exercise their freedoms.
That's exactly right. He is warning us that he will use his concealed weapon to harm others without provocation. If he's willing to break one law, what's preventing him from carrying concealed wherever he's at now? And then doing the same thing? Clearly that's a red flag, law enforcement has to be notified, and he has to be relieved of any firearms he has in is possession now. It's for the children.
-
Wow.
Read between the lines. Let it soak in.
That is an incredible statement of self loathing.
Mikey doesn't actually, you know, think.
He emotes and babbles other peoples words.
-
No I get where he’s coming from. He thinks conservatives don’t want liberals to arm themselves, or that conservatives believe liberals aren’t armed so if a shooting war comes the right will prevail and to be fair it is a common meme. And there is some truth to it, the stereotype isn’t completely wrong. The latte sipping liberal metrosexual with the man bun likely isn’t carrying as he goes to Starbucks. While the average conservative in flyover country is much more likely to be carrying when he goes to Chick-fil-A.
But it’s also true a lot of liberals and Democrats are suddenly seeing a need for self defense as the Marxist thugs are attacking you in your car downtown or expanding into suburbia, and besides, they are being brainwashed by MSM that there’s a massive violent insurrection by Nazi racists happening all over the country with white supremacists around every corner ready to kill you, and if you are black (and don’t think for yourself) you are convinced of this even more.
-
Actually I think he might realize that he isn't a good candidate for concealed carry... either because of poor judgement or because he doesn't think he could pull the trigger in a self-defense situation or for some other reason.
And that's fine. If a person doesn't think he should carry, that's his decision.
-
Given the incredible vitriol that's been sent my way I would think that the absolutely last thing any of you would want is me armed. If it came to it I probably could score a CCW permit in my state, I've got a pretty clean record. I owe no taxes and haven't even had a parking ticket for years. All that said, my employer expressly forbids its employees from bearing arms on the premises (which is their right). Since I like where I work I think I will remain disarmed. I've been disarmed for almost 60 years and haven't had cause to regret it.
-
... and like all liberal whiners, you think because you choose not to exercise your constitutional right, the rest of us shouldn’t be allowed.
-
... and like all liberal whiners, you think because you choose not to exercise your constitutional right, the rest of us shouldn’t be allowed.
One again Number 7 shows how full of shit he really is. Find me a post anywhere on this site where I have been aught but a vocal supporter of firearm rights.
-
"If we're going to ignore the stuff about a militia, "
one of the standard lies of the anti-gun crowd.
Hopefully pointing that out won't upset you too much
-
"If we're going to ignore the stuff about a militia, "
one of the standard lies of the anti-gun crowd.
Hopefully pointing that out won't upset you too much
A lot of legal scholars say we shouldn't interpret the Constitution, we should follow it as written. So yeah, there's that stuff about a militia. The Founders could have just said "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Instead they put in a preamble about a militia.
Right now we're ignoring the part about the militia. Fine by me, by the way. I've enumerated my thinking about firearms elsewhere on this site. My problem is if you can ignore the first part, you can just as easily ignore the second, and some court might just decide to do that some day.
-
A lot of legal scholars say we shouldn't interpret the Constitution, we should follow it as written. So yeah, there's that stuff about a militia. The Founders could have just said "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Instead they put in a preamble about a militia.
Right now we're ignoring the part about the militia. Fine by me, by the way. I've enumerated my thinking about firearms elsewhere on this site. My problem is if you can ignore the first part, you can just as easily ignore the second, and some court might just decide to do that some day.
If you knew how to read and comprehend, or even do basic research, you would find out about how the document was written and what the founders intended in the final document.
But that wouldn't follow your preconceived notions.
-
A lot of legal scholars say we shouldn't interpret the Constitution, we should follow it as written. So yeah, there's that stuff about a militia. The Founders could have just said "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Instead they put in a preamble about a militia.
Right now we're ignoring the part about the militia. Fine by me, by the way. I've enumerated my thinking about firearms elsewhere on this site. My problem is if you can ignore the first part, you can just as easily ignore the second, and some court might just decide to do that some day.
Educate yourself on the militia clause:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#:~:text=%20Heller%2C%20554%20U.S.%20570%20%282008%29%2C%20was%20a,bound%20by%20a%20trigger%20lock%22%20violated%20this%20
-
If you knew how to read and comprehend, or even do basic research, you would find out about how the document was written and what the founders intended in the final document.
But that wouldn't follow your preconceived notions.
But that's just it. Originalists say we're supposed to read it as written. They have a point, trying to do telepathy on long dead legislators on why they wrote things they way they did is pure folly. It is written with a preamble about a militia.
Hey look, I honestly don't give a shit. I research genetics, not your precious 38 caliber security blankets. I'll never support anyone taking your weapons aways from you, there are some damn good reasons for folks owning them. And I will never in my life support restricting someone's rights because it makes someone else feel better. That's bullshit of the purest nature. If firearms actually presented a clear danger to the non-firearm owning public I'd feel differently, but they don't and neither do I. If the US firearm community had the brains Odin gave tardigrades they'd amend the Constitution and get rid of the militia clause. Make it nice and crystal. The really sad thing is there is critical mass to do this. The firearm community is vast, well funded and emotionally driven. It is a real tragedy that this hasn't happened already.
-
A lot of legal scholars say we shouldn't interpret the Constitution, we should follow it as written. So yeah, there's that stuff about a militia. The Founders could have just said "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Instead they put in a preamble about a militia.
Right now we're ignoring the part about the militia. Fine by me, by the way. I've enumerated my thinking about firearms elsewhere on this site. My problem is if you can ignore the first part, you can just as easily ignore the second, and some court might just decide to do that some day.
It is sad that you don't realize that we aren't ignoring the preamble... we understand that it is a P R E A M B L E .
-
Mikey doesn't do research.
He steals other people’s words and pretends.
-
Mikey do went do research.
He steals other people’s words and pretends.
Oh my goodness, an insult from Number 7! At least I know were aren't in some sort of alternate reality.
-
But that's just it. Originalists say we're supposed to read it as written. They have a point, trying to do telepathy on long dead legislators on why they wrote things they way they did is pure folly. It is written with a preamble about a militia.
Thanks for making my point. You have never read nor researched the subject, except for left wing biased "interpretations" and attempted history rewrites.
Hey look, I honestly don't give a shit.
Again, tell us something we haven't already figured out. ::)
I research genetics, not your precious 38 caliber security blankets.
Making a retort such as that just goes to further show how clueless you are on the subject.
I'll never support anyone taking your weapons aways from you, there are some damn good reasons for folks owning them. And I will never in my life support restricting someone's rights because it makes someone else feel better. That's bullshit of the purest nature. If firearms actually presented a clear danger to the non-firearm owning public I'd feel differently, but they don't and neither do I.
No argument
If the US firearm community had the brains Odin gave tardigrades they'd amend the Constitution and get rid of the militia clause. Make it nice and crystal. The really sad thing is there is critical mass to do this. The firearm community is vast, well funded and emotionally driven. It is a real tragedy that this hasn't happened already.
OK. Now you are back to not understanding the subject at hand. If you actually knew the subject matter you would see how silly the above is.
-
Michael is not wrong. While the intent of the second amendment is clear, the verbiage alone is open to misinterpretation by the uninformed, who are legion, leading to infringement consequences. This is why a case like Heller is necessary periodically, to clarify the whole meaning and uphold it:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
The first clause makes clear that the power to form a militia remains with the people, and this is why common citizens must have arms. But this is misinterpreted (out of ignorance or deliberately for an agenda such as disarming former slaves) to mean that a formal standing army or national guard fulfills that intent. Logic alone debunks that, for that would mean, “the country has a right to have an official military” which is a given and has nothing to do with individual rights which was the whole point of the Bill of Rights. It wasn’t about the rights of the nation. It was about the rights of the people, so the right of the nation to have an army would be a moot point and irrelevant. So that cannot be what the second amendment meant.
But we know that some people have made that claim for over a century (that the militia clause means the whole thing doesn’t refer to individuals) and made bad law because of it. Michael is saying if we amended it to remove that clause then that argument would go away. He’s right. Now, maybe it wouldn’t stop the anti-gunners from trying, but they’d then have to try to eliminate the amendment altogether or employ some other convoluted unconstitutional work around. I’m sure they would try but that doesn’t make Michael’s point invalid. I see nothing in what he’s said to indicate he doesn’t understand all of this.
-
Michael is not wrong. While the intent of the second amendment is clear, the verbiage alone is open to misinterpretation by the uninformed, who are legion, leading to infringement consequences. This is why a case like Heller is necessary periodically, to clarify the whole meaning and uphold it:
The first clause makes clear that the power to form a militia remains with the people, and this is why common citizens must have arms. But this is misinterpreted (out of ignorance or deliberately for an agenda such as disarming former slaves) to mean that a formal standing army or national guard fulfills that intent. Logic alone debunks that, for that would mean, “the country has a right to have an official military” which is a given and has nothing to do with individual rights which was the whole point of the Bill of Rights. It wasn’t about the rights of the nation. It was about the rights of the people, so the right of the nation to have an army would be a moot point and irrelevant. So that cannot be what the second amendment meant.
But we know that some people have made that claim for over a century (that the militia clause means the whole thing doesn’t refer to individuals) and made bad law because of it. Michael is saying if we amended it to remove that clause then that argument would go away. He’s right. Now, maybe it wouldn’t stop the anti-gunners from trying, but they’d then have to try to eliminate the amendment altogether or employ some other convoluted unconstitutional work around. I’m sure they would try but that doesn’t make Michael’s point invalid. I see nothing in what he’s said to indicate he doesn’t understand all of this.
It’s intellectual laziness to believe that the 2nd Amendment provided for the government to have a militia. He’s consulted no scholars’ writings about it, despite his claim. The militia claim was debunked in the 2008 Heller case. I posted a Wiki link that you cited, but a better intellectual exercise is to actually read the damned case, which goes into great length on the history of the clause, and why it can be noting but an individual right.
With that clarity with anyone who has intellectual honesty, amending the Amendment is unnecessary.
-
The constitutions of North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were written in 1776 and therefore predate the U.S. constitution’s Bill of Rights which was first drawn up in 1789 and ratified in 1791. The text of the second amendment appears to have drawn mostly from the Virginia constitution. But many of the people who wrote the texts of those state constitutions also were involved in drafting the Federal constitution.
The following web site lists the text of the right to bear arms clauses in the 44 US states that include such clauses - including changes over the years: https://gun-control.procon.org/state-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-2/ (https://gun-control.procon.org/state-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-2/)
Here are the three state clauses that predate the Federal constitution:
North Carolina, 1776:
“That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Pennsylvania, 1776:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Virginia, 1776:
“That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Many constitutions of other states with such clauses are shorter and to the point, e.g. this modification to the Pennsylvania constitution:
Pennsylvania, 1790:
“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
-
I think that the thing to remember is that the Constitution is there to outline restrictions on the government, not to grant rights to the people. Under that assumption, the government is restricted from denying the people from their God-given right to bear arms.
-
But that's just it. Originalists say we're supposed to read it as written. They have a point, trying to do telepathy on long dead legislators on why they wrote things they way they did is pure folly. It is written with a preamble about a militia.
Hey look, I honestly don't give a shit. I research genetics, not your precious 38 caliber security blankets. I'll never support anyone taking your weapons aways from you, there are some damn good reasons for folks owning them. And I will never in my life support restricting someone's rights because it makes someone else feel better. That's bullshit of the purest nature. If firearms actually presented a clear danger to the non-firearm owning public I'd feel differently, but they don't and neither do I. If the US firearm community had the brains Odin gave tardigrades they'd amend the Constitution and get rid of the militia clause. Make it nice and crystal. The really sad thing is there is critical mass to do this. The firearm community is vast, well funded and emotionally driven. It is a real tragedy that this hasn't happened already.
We The People are the militia, knucklehead. As the man said, it's self-evident."
-
We The People are the militia, knucklehead. As the man said, it's self-evident."
Exactly! Our forefathers were smart enough to realize that an armed citizenship is the worlds biggest and best army. As long as average Americans have the ability to bear arms, it would be suicidal for any foreign power to put boots on our shores.
THAT, right there, is the biggest reason to preserve 2A. Yes, personal defense is good, but defense of our country is the reason the second amendment was put into place.
-
Exactly! Our forefathers were smart enough to realize that an armed citizenship is the worlds biggest and best army. As long as average Americans have the ability to bear arms, it would be suicidal for any foreign power to put boots on our shores.
THAT, right there, is the biggest reason to preserve 2A. Yes, personal defense is good, but defense of our country is the reason the second amendment was put into place.
Not defense of our country so much as defense of the people from their own government. I think that was the more important intent.
-
Yes, but now the “government” has access to biological weaponry. Added to their economic and energy weaponry.
-
We The People are the militia, knucklehead. As the man said, it's self-evident."
It’s not self-evident at all to much of the population who are not taught in school the truth about the Amendments or the Constitution in general, and who are raised without firearms themselves expecting some government authority to protect them. They see “the militia” as something apart from themselves, something uniformed and sanctioned by those in authority. Furthermore, the Supreme Court itself ruled in 1875 that individuals do not have a right to bear arms, but that the 2nd refers to state sanctioned militia, a ruling that held more than a century. Michael has plenty of historical and current cultural justification to say, “leaving aside the first clause”. I’m not saying he’s right if he believes that interpretation. But as he has stated multiple times, he believes the second clause, and that’s all that matters. I don’t understand why you are piling on him about this. Other than he’s being a bit snarky but I would too if ya’ll constantly insulted me like you do him.
-
Other than he’s being a bit snarky but I would too if ya’ll constantly insulted me like you do him.
The perfesser comes here to troll the board. He does the same on other forums as well.
He will rarely ever try to back up his assertions, resorting to name calling, playing the victim, wash, rinse, repeat.
I laugh at most of his post because it becomes evident he is just parroting liberal talking points without thought or knowledge of the subject.
But, as always, we are a free and open forum and do not censor anyone.
-
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/074/994/557/original/0f3a8ed13ce87801.jpeg)
-
But, as always, we are a free and open forum and do not censor anyone.
Of course! I’m not asking you to censor yourselves, just expressing my opinion. I don’t actually want any of you to stop being assholes. It’s one reason this forum is so much better than PoA.
-
Of course! I’m not asking you to censor yourselves, just expressing my opinion. I don’t actually want any of you to stop being assholes. It’s one reason this forum is so much better than PoA.
I would like to see the perfesser come here and offer some insightful and educated counterpoints, and be able to actually engage in a meaningful debate. Just like the liberal lurkers who come in and do a "drive by" posting then flee.
But then again, I would like to see my cats learn to clean their litterbox daily as well........... ::) ;)
-
All of you are educational to me. I try to keep an open mind and learn.
-
I’m not saying he’s right if he believes that interpretation. But as he has stated multiple times, he believes the second clause, and that’s all that matters.
-
But as he has stated multiple times, he believes the second clause, and that’s all that matters.
How many times have you heard democrats claim that they support the 2nd amendment and then work to infringe on our rights?
-
How many times have you heard democrats claim that they support the 2nd amendment and then work to infringe on our rights?
Has Steingar done that? Other than vote for Democrats.
-
The record of democrats lying about supporting the 2nd amendment lays bare the fallacy of your claim that claiming support for the 2nd amendment is all that matters.
did anyone follow that?
-
The record of democrats lying about supporting the 2nd amendment lays bare the fallacy of your claim that claiming support for the 2nd amendment is all that matters.
did anyone follow that?
No, I’m not following you.
-
the democrats claim support of the 2nd amendment.
which you claim is "all that matters"
-
the democrats claim support of the 2nd amendment.
which you claim is "all that matters"
No, I said that Steingar supporting the part of the second amendment that says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is all that matters. I don’t care why he thinks I want my guns, as long as he doesn’t try to take them away from me. He doesn’t have to believe I want them to form a militia.
And it doesn’t matter that he claims to support it, it matters that he actually supports it.
-
No, I said that Steingar supporting the part of the second amendment that says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is all that matters. I don’t care why he thinks I want my guns, as long as he doesn’t try to take them away from me. He doesn’t have to believe I want them to form a militia.
And it doesn’t matter that he claims to support it, it matters that he actually supports it.
ok, I agree that it matters that someone actually supports it.
But you said "But as he has stated multiple times, he believes the second clause, and that’s all that matters. " "believes"
-
I always found it interesting that Bernie Sanders of all people was for a long time a defender of gun rights and had the voting record to prove it, not just saying one thing and doing another. Typical liberal article from several years ago critical of his position:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/05/bernie-sanders-on-guns-vermont-independent-voted-against-gun-control-for-plcaa.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/05/bernie-sanders-on-guns-vermont-independent-voted-against-gun-control-for-plcaa.html)
-
ok, I agree that it matters that someone actually supports it.
But you said "But as he has stated multiple times, he believes the second clause, and that’s all that matters. " "believes"
Well, believes in, supports, semantics. He verbally supports it anyway, I doubt he sends money to the NRA.
-
Well, believes in, supports, semantics. He verbally supports it anyway, I doubt he sends money to the NRA.
semantics? hardly.
he might verbally support it (however, minimally), but his actions are contrary to his alledged support. For example, I have no doubt that he votes for whatever slime has the (D) next to his/her/whatever name.
wrt to this subject, actions are more important than words.
-
semantics? hardly.
he might verbally support it (however, minimally), but his actions are contrary to his alledged support. For example, I have no doubt that he votes for whatever slime has the (D) next to his/her/whatever name.
wrt to this subject, actions are more important than words.
I did say except for voting Democrat. But you can still support something and vote the other way. I usually vote for the Republican even though I support the opposition on some issues. For example back in 2016 or thereabouts Trump made a statement in support of civil asset forfeiture which I vehemently oppose but I voted for him anyway. I wouldn’t want to be accused of supporting civil asset forfeiture just because I voted for Trump.
-
I did say except for voting Democrat. But you can still support something and vote the other way. I usually vote for the Republican even though I support the opposition on some issues. For example back in 2016 or thereabouts Trump made a statement in support of civil asset forfeiture which I vehemently oppose but I voted for him anyway. I wouldn’t want to be accused of supporting civil asset forfeiture just because I voted for Trump.
To be fair, that’s probably because you knew the democrats were far worse on civil asset forfeiture, and you only had a binary choice for president.
As for Steingar’s militia canard, the problem that we all see is that his position mirrors what four out of nine Supreme Court justices said in Heller, and what anti-gun zealots often use to claim that individuals don’t have the RKBA.
For YEARS Steingar has used the militia argument to imply that ordinary citizens don’t have a RKBA even though he claims he’s happy that bearing arms isn’t currently being infringed. For YEARS I’ve referred him to the intellectual study of that prefatory clause, and for YEARS he’s utterly ignored the analysis put forth by Scalia in Heller.
So for YEARS either:
A. He truly doesn’t believe it, just like Biden who says he supports the 2A;
B. He is anti-intellectual and refuses to examine the militia issue that HE himself constantly raises, despite being presented with evidence in the form of historical examination of the issue in Heller; or
C. He’s just being a fucking troll once again.
If I said I was pro-life, but worked for years to support Planned Parenthood, pushed to pass laws making abortion as free and easy as buying eye drops at Walgreens, and pushed for public funding of abortion clinics, you would tell me that I’m not pro-life at all. I think it’s the same with the 2A.
-
steingar is a typical modern liberal.
He has no fucking clue what he is talking about, and constantly uses other peoples' words and arguments as if they were his own.
The reason I am so dismissive of the modern liberal is the sheer and total hypocrisy of their words and actions.
Between the flat out lies about bullshit they made up and then pretend to be true is just as delusional as their positions on things they can't begin to define.
When has a liberal EVER intelligently defined living wage, or assault weapon?
The modern liberal is about as blind, stupid, and dumb as a sheep because they want to be.
Liberals LOVE being told what to do, think and say.
Want to make a liberal mad?
All you have to do is think for yourself, or be self reliant.
Dependency is a drug liberals crave and demand.
Freedom of speech is an impediment to dependency, and they hate it.
That
And most liberals have a deeply psychotic sense of entitlement and go into a jealous rage
when they see people who refuse to embrace what they crave the most.
Their jealousy also comes from hating that others have 'freedom' to do something they feel is evil.
-
To be fair, that’s probably because you knew the democrats were far worse on civil asset forfeiture, and you only had a binary choice for president.
As for Steingar’s militia canard, the problem that we all see is that his position mirrors what four out of nine Supreme Court justices said in Heller, and what anti-gun zealots often use to claim that individuals don’t have the RKBA.
For YEARS Steingar has used the militia argument to imply that ordinary citizens don’t have a RKBA even though he claims he’s happy that bearing arms isn’t currently being infringed. For YEARS I’ve referred him to the intellectual study of that prefatory clause, and for YEARS he’s utterly ignored the analysis put forth by Scalia in Heller.
So for YEARS either:
A. He truly doesn’t believe it, just like Biden who says he supports the 2A;
B. He is anti-intellectual and refuses to examine the militia issue that HE himself constantly raises, despite being presented with evidence in the form of historical examination of the issue in Heller; or
C. He’s just being a fucking troll once again.
If I said I was pro-life, but worked for years to support Planned Parenthood, pushed to pass laws making abortion as free and easy as buying eye drops at Walgreens, and pushed for public funding of abortion clinics, you would tell me that I’m not pro-life at all. I think it’s the same with the 2A.
Unlike you I don't recall what Michael has been saying for YEARS but only recently. My memory tapes get overwritten. I'm basing what I'm saying on the past, I don't know, few months? And people do change. But I defer now to Michael himself rather than continue speculating on what's inside his head at this point in time.
-
He who is Steingar. has said the exact same thing since the founding of this pathetic board. That there are very good reasons to own firearms. I believe that defending yourself against the forces of Evil isn't one of them. That is my opinion, and I don't give a fuck if you don't agree. But there are lots and lots of others. Moreover, the vast majority of firearm owners are law abiding citizens. The vast majority of firearm victims are known to their assailants, indeed half are suicides. As such there is no reason whatsoever for greater controls on firearms that exist at the present moment, and there might be too many as it is.
Sadly, there are communities that suffer far too much firearm violence. I've been told that the odds of dying violently on the front lines in Afghanistan are actually less than the odds of dying violently in some areas of Chicago. Local leaders turn to firearm ordinances, which are forever doomed to failure, since firearms are easily moved from one location to another. The only solution to the violence is to solve the poverty, and we've not done that in recorded history.
No doubt since I don't rigidly tout the Conservative party line lots of people will pile on and call me names. What the fuck ever.
-
No doubt since I don't rigidly tout the Conservative party line lots of people will pile on and call me names. What the fuck ever.
No, we don't call you names because you don't tout the Conservative party lines. We call you names because you're a douche.
-
He who is Steingar. has said the exact same thing since the founding of this pathetic board. That there are very good reasons to own firearms. I believe that defending yourself against the forces of Evil isn't one of them. That is my opinion, and I don't give a fuck if you don't agree. But there are lots and lots of others. Moreover, the vast majority of firearm owners are law abiding citizens. The vast majority of firearm victims are known to their assailants, indeed half are suicides. As such there is no reason whatsoever for greater controls on firearms that exist at the present moment, and there might be too many as it is.
Sadly, there are communities that suffer far too much firearm violence. I've been told that the odds of dying violently on the front lines in Afghanistan are actually less than the odds of dying violently in some areas of Chicago. Local leaders turn to firearm ordinances, which are forever doomed to failure, since firearms are easily moved from one location to another. The only solution to the violence is to solve the poverty, and we've not done that in recorded history.
No doubt since I don't rigidly tout the Conservative party line lots of people will pile on and call me names. What the fuck ever.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpics.me.me%2Fvictim-card-get-out-of-responsibility-free-8006811.png&f=1&nofb=1)
-
. The only solution to the violence is to solve the poverty, and we've not done that in recorded history.
THIS^^^^^^^
Statistics absolutely confirm that violence, firearm and otherwise, is positively correlated to unemployment and other measures of poverty. When the economy is strong in such a way as to improve conditions for the lower and middle classes rather than just make the rich richer, gun violence goes down.
Besides the suicide and domestic violence that you mention, gang and drug related activity covers the rest, and these are the direct result of the disastrous way we’ve handled inner city populations of disenfranchised people.
-
The fucking guy Biden wants to head ATF couldn't define an assault weapon for god's sake.
-
The fucking guy Biden wants to head ATF couldn't define an assault weapon for god's sake.
There is a clear definition of an assault weapon. It's what the military uses to assault the enemy. The problem is democrats trying to apply that definition to an AR15, a scary looking black semiautomatic ONLY rifle which is NOT an assault weapon.
-
There is a clear definition of an assault weapon. It's what the military uses to assault the enemy. The problem is democrats trying to apply that definition to an AR15, a scary looking black semiautomatic ONLY rifle which is NOT an assault weapon.
The media and Hollywood are responsible for a lot of the idiocy.
-
THIS^^^^^^^
Statistics absolutely confirm that violence, firearm and otherwise, is positively correlated to unemployment and other measures of poverty. When the economy is strong in such a way as to improve conditions for the lower and middle classes rather than just make the rich richer, gun violence goes down.
Besides the suicide and domestic violence that you mention, gang and drug related activity covers the rest, and these are the direct result of the disastrous way we’ve handled inner city populations of disenfranchised people.
The last administration made record gains on bringing people out of poverty, made historic gains on reducing unemployment for minorities. Also made historic gains for helping minorities to establish businesses.
However this goes against the DCP in that they need people on public assistance and they need to put more into poverty. The DCP absolutely hates the middle class and wants it destroyed.
-
Disagree heartily on poverty as relates to gun violence. The decision to shoot someone in our country is never, or so extremely rarely as to be negligible, made because of starvation (dire need for food) or lack of money.
I lived for years when I was single on a salary that made me eligible for subsidized housing! I never used any government charities, but used the fact that my salary was poverty level in a request for a raise, since I was a professional and wanted to embarrass my employer. It worked. Interestingly, “poverty” designations qualifying one for aid vary between city and rural. On my salary, I could support one person in the city at poverty level, but SEVEN people in the country! I’m sure officialdom had quite the good time coming up with such specific numbers.
We live in a country where food banks and clothing banks and generous programs and scholarships and charitable agencies and free clinics and organizations and professionals offering free services ... and on and on and on ... most notably including huge FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, are plentiful. We even welcome those who came here illegally to such services.
I posit that FRACTURED FAMILIES are the greater cause of gun violence. Also of drug abuse and child abuse and all manner of hellish behaviors completely apart from guns. People need to have strong families, accountability, community, a sense of belonging, and other things that have little or no monetary requirement for human flourishing. Democrats have proven they cannot deliver policies that help the poor or the fractured.
President Trump moved swiftly and effectively in creating opportunity zones in cities as he promised to do, which resulted in more jobs, lower unemployment, and thriving black families. That is one reason blacks supported him in greater numbers in this election.
Fix disenfranchisement and families, usually not possible without sharing intrinsic values, and you fix poverty and violence both.
-
Why does our culture in the USA value the life of other people so little?
(btw - I dispise the term "gun violence"... as if the gun committed the crime, it leapt from the safe and starting shooting)
-
Disagree heartily on poverty as relates to gun violence. The decision to shoot someone in our country is never, or so extremely rarely as to be negligible, made because of starvation (dire need for food) or lack of money.
I lived for years when I was single on a salary that made me eligible for subsidized housing! I never used any government charities, but used the fact that my salary was poverty level in a request for a raise, since I was a professional and wanted to embarrass my employer. It worked. Interestingly, “poverty” designations qualifying one for aid vary between city and rural. On my salary, I could support one person in the city at poverty level, but SEVEN people in the country! I’m sure officialdom had quite the good time coming up with such specific numbers.
We live in a country where food banks and clothing banks and generous programs and scholarships and charitable agencies and free clinics and organizations and professionals offering free services ... and on and on and on ... most notably including huge FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, are plentiful. We even welcome those who came here illegally to such services.
I posit that FRACTURED FAMILIES are the greater cause of gun violence. Also of drug abuse and child abuse and all manner of hellish behaviors completely apart from guns. People need to have strong families, accountability, community, a sense of belonging, and other things that have little or no monetary requirement for human flourishing. Democrats have proven they cannot deliver policies that help the poor or the fractured.
President Trump moved swiftly and effectively in creating opportunity zones in cities as he promised to do, which resulted in more jobs, lower unemployment, and thriving black families. That is one reason blacks supported him in greater numbers in this election.
Fix disenfranchisement and families, usually not possible without sharing intrinsic values, and you fix poverty and violence both.
You took the words right out of my mouth, but of course stated your case much more eloquently than I could have.
I don’t buy it either.
-
The culture in inner cities is the cause of violence. Music that talks about violence, drugs, degrading women; lack of positive role models; getting an education not a priority; lack of respect for each other. While poverty can play a role, it's far from the main reason.
-
The culture in inner cities is the cause of violence. Music that talks about violence, drugs, degrading women; lack of positive role models; getting an education not a priority; lack of respect for each other. While poverty can play a role, it's far from the main reason.
If anyone on this board would know, it is this guy ^^^^^
-
If anyone on this board would know, it is this guy ^^^^^
I've seen 4 year olds playing video games yelling "fuck that n-gger up". I've seen kids put pad locks on their bedroom door so other family members don't steal from them. I've drug out a guy from under a bed that his grandma was sitting on in an effort to hide him. I've had family cheering a murder suspect after we arrested him because he barricaded himself inside and caused a huge problem for us.
-
The real truth is hateful to Mikey and his leftist brethren.
Black on black violence is an epidemic, so all lefty liars run around whining about guns instead of criminals.
The gun didn't commit any crime.
The uncomfortable truth is that the democrat liberal plantation agenda is largely to blame.
Fatherless children.
Children raised by the state at the demand of the left.
Black on black violence ignore, excused and viciously kept out of public discourse.
All caused by fucking idiots of the democrat communist party.
-
Disagree heartily on poverty as relates to gun violence. The decision to shoot someone in our country is never, or so extremely rarely as to be negligible, made because of starvation (dire need for food) or lack of money.
I lived for years when I was single on a salary that made me eligible for subsidized housing! I never used any government charities, but used the fact that my salary was poverty level in a request for a raise, since I was a professional and wanted to embarrass my employer. It worked. Interestingly, “poverty” designations qualifying one for aid vary between city and rural. On my salary, I could support one person in the city at poverty level, but SEVEN people in the country! I’m sure officialdom had quite the good time coming up with such specific numbers.
We live in a country where food banks and clothing banks and generous programs and scholarships and charitable agencies and free clinics and organizations and professionals offering free services ... and on and on and on ... most notably including huge FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, are plentiful. We even welcome those who came here illegally to such services.
I posit that FRACTURED FAMILIES are the greater cause of gun violence. Also of drug abuse and child abuse and all manner of hellish behaviors completely apart from guns. People need to have strong families, accountability, community, a sense of belonging, and other things that have little or no monetary requirement for human flourishing. Democrats have proven they cannot deliver policies that help the poor or the fractured.
President Trump moved swiftly and effectively in creating opportunity zones in cities as he promised to do, which resulted in more jobs, lower unemployment, and thriving black families. That is one reason blacks supported him in greater numbers in this election.
Fix disenfranchisement and families, usually not possible without sharing intrinsic values, and you fix poverty and violence both.
I agree with you about fractured families and the Democrats causing it, which I alluded to in this statement: “ ....gang and drug related activity covers the rest, and these are the direct result of the disastrous way we’ve handled inner city populations of disenfranchised people.”
I was going to expound on it much as you did but don’t have a lot of time today. There’s a lot of complexity but it boils down to what this article says:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/city-killing-america-daniel-greenfield/
More people + less jobs packed together in miserable conditions. You cannot fix the fractured families until you bring back the jobs. There’s a big difference between someone like you, technically poverty level, but you had a job, however low paying, and you’re female; and a male born into slum conditions several generations deep. You can’t just say, I was poor and I didn’t go around shooting anybody.
No jobs led to welfare (what are you going to do, let them starve?) which led to no fathers (more money if you don’t have a man) which led to males being raised without strong guidance from a male role model.... who had a job! No older males to keep them in line, young males join gangs and become violent as their means of support, status and protection. They have little choice, so, jobs going away and the poverty it caused directly leads to their culture of violence. All the rapping, music degrading women etc, is a result, not a cause of the situation. Blacks were NOT like that prior to de-industrialization of the cities. They had strong family values, marriage rates were actually higher than whites.
Trump’s effort to bring jobs back to America was beginning to work and is the right approach. Lack of jobs is the core problem but swirling around that are all these distal consequences. It’s not just about jobs and money, it’s about self respect and meaning and purpose. You can’t give people those things. People need to find them for themselves in conditions of freedom and a good economy.
-
I've seen 4 year olds playing video games yelling "fuck that n-gger up". I've seen kids put pad locks on their bedroom door so other family members don't steal from them. I've drug out a guy from under a bed that his grandma was sitting on in an effort to hide him. I've had family cheering a murder suspect after we arrested him because he barricaded himself inside and caused a huge problem for us.
But but but ... poverty!
Smh.
-
The real truth is hateful to Mikey and his leftist brethren.
Black on black violence is an epidemic, so all lefty liars run around whining about guns instead of criminals.
The gun didn't commit any crime.
The uncomfortable truth is that the democrat liberal plantation agenda is largely to blame.
Fatherless children.
Children raised by the state at the demand of the left.
Black on black violence ignore, excused and viciously kept out of public discourse.
All caused by fucking idiots of the democrat communist party.
The big city DCP machines are completely unwilling to do anything about it, so instead of taking a tough-on-crime stance to take the thugs and their violent spawn off the streets, they take a soft-on-crime approach in order to get re-elected by the gang bangers and ghetto hood rats.
It’s sickening, and a blind man could see what’s going on.
-
THIS^^^^^^^
Statistics absolutely confirm that violence, firearm and otherwise, is positively correlated to unemployment and other measures of poverty. When the economy is strong in such a way as to improve conditions for the lower and middle classes rather than just make the rich richer, gun violence goes down.
Correlation is not causation.
Violence is also correlated to a decline in church attendance. By that logic, we should be requiring everyone to attend a church regularly. People who are taught to love they neighbor and that you’re going to hell for killing someone tend not to shoot people. Or stab them. Or blow them up.
-
If anyone on this board would know, it is this guy ^^^^^
The latest rhetoric I’m hearing is a comparison to swimming in a poisoned pond. I’m pretty sure they mean “systemic racism”, but unequal outcomes are a result and the cause is not “white people built a system to keep the other races down. After all, Asians.
To me, culture is that pond. But the next really uncomfortable question is “what is poisoning the pond?” Too many people have an investment in not answering that question.
-
Correlation is not causation.
Violence is also correlated to a decline in church attendance. By that logic, we should be requiring everyone to attend a church regularly. People who are taught to love they neighbor and that you’re going to hell for killing someone tend not to shoot people. Or stab them. Or blow them up.
That was another factor with black inner city communities. Desegregation led to “better quality” people such as preachers and professionals leaving because they could. These people as it turned out, had been the moral backbone of the communities. An unintended consequence of desegregation was that those with lower intelligence, less conscientiousness and other features associated with ability to succeed, were left behind.