Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

@oralloy,

It influences how you think and feel.

Maybe staring down death will make you realize how important legislation is. Or not...

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Violating people's civil liberties for fun is not important.

The left can get their fun some other way.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Trust me, staring down the wrong end of a weapon isn't fun. Yet you treat it as just another day. It isn't. That's what's important.

We all have a right to pursue Happiness. That just doesn't occur when you're dead.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Yet you treat it as just another day.

What makes you think that?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your repetitive notion of how "fun" it is.

Nobody is actually having fun watching people die needlessly.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

I never said that being shot at (or seeing people being shot at) is fun.

I said that leftists are trying to violate people's civil liberties for fun.

"Fun" refers to the joy that leftists experience when they violate someone's civil liberties for no reason.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

I suppose some people have forgotten about the 2nd paragraph in the Declaration of Independence. Kinda sad, and very dangerous for this country.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

If the left wants to pursue happiness by trying to violate people's civil liberties for no reason, they are free to try.

But the NRA is still going to prevent the left from actually violating anyone's civil liberties.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Again, there is no joy in being shot at. If you have experienced that, then you'd know. The violation of a hierarchy of civil rights include the right to not get shot. That is the highest reason I know of.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

civil rights include the right to not get shot.

Do you have the right to not be killed by a drunk driver?

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

That doesn't change the reality that the American people are not going to allow the left to violate their civil liberties.

The left can get their fun some other way.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Yes. It is a criminal offence to be killed by a drunk driver.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

It is likewise a criminal offense to massacre people in a shooting spree.

So I guess that means there is no need for further legislation.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

No, that's not what that means.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Maybe. Maybe not. Why does it matter?

We’ve all seen how much you like to toot your own horn. If you had ever been in actual combat in the military or a civilian gunfight, you’d take every opportunity to tout what a brave, skilled (and of course 170 IQ genius) warrior you are. The fact that you can’t even readily admit you’ve never personally experienced the chaos and carnage that armed combat can cause just exposes more clearly how much of a poser you are - forever extolling the great importance of guns. Forever bleating about how someone’s trying to take your guns.

Pitiful

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Reducing the levels of guns would reduce the levels of suicide and homicide rates, and unintentional deaths by firearms.

According to this study, "the increased rate of suicide and homicide in states with high gun levels was accounted for primarily by significantly elevated firearm suicide and firearm homicide rates. Unintentional firearm death rates were also increased in states with more guns. At the regional level, qualitatively similar results were obtained."

The study is incorrect. Firearm availability has very little impact on homicide rates.

Note (limited number of free articles per month, so best viewed in incognito/private browsing mode so no cookies are left in your browser):
http://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

No it's not.

Your guy is arguing about owning guns, not the number of guns. Also, his article isn't a study; it's a bunch of numbers he's throwing around.

oralloy wrote:

Your logic is also flawed. The difference between "someone owning guns" versus "someone owning no guns at all" would impact gun accidents and perhaps also suicides. But the difference between a gun owner owning "few guns" or "many guns" will not change suicide rates or the rate of accidental deaths. It only takes a single gun to commit suicide or have an accident.

That's merely your assertion. I prefer the study's conclusions, thank you.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
It would be interesting to see how hunters react at the voting booth after the left deprives them of some of their hunting rifles.

Their interests are secondary, at best, to the interests of the larger US population.

I did not refer to their interests, but rather to my curiosity in seeing their reaction at the voting booth.

Many hunters maintain a delusion that the left is not out to get their personal hunting weapons. Shattering their delusions will likely produce results on election day.

Their vote in regard to their interest is a minority one.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The Second Amendment refers to good regulation.

The term "well-regulated militia" referred to a militia that had trained to such a degree that they could fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a band of uncoordinated individuals. It didn't refer to rules and guidelines.

This is merely an interpretation of yours of the Second Amendment.

oralloy wrote:

That said, restrictions on guns are allowed if they pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

InfraBlue wrote:
These regulations would be within the Second Amendment's scope.

I see no compelling government interest in limiting the number of guns that one person can own.

See the report above that I cited.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

The point isn't that one killing is worse than another. The point is that a killing is more likely to occur during an assult than with less-easy weapons, like knives.

Statistics are clear though that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates:
http://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

Again, you're arguing a different issue.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

No it's not.

Statistics are very clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates. Anything that says otherwise is wrong.

InfraBlue wrote:

That's merely your assertion. I prefer the study's conclusions, thank you.

I saw nothing in that study that looked at the difference between a gun owner owning "a few guns" versus "many guns".

Also, these is a matter of basic logic here. How would having more than one gun make a suicide more likely (or more likely to succeed) than just having a single gun?

InfraBlue wrote:

Their vote in regard to their interest is a minority one.

It will still amuse me to see the hunting community vote leftist politicians out of office.

InfraBlue wrote:

This is merely an interpretation of yours of the Second Amendment.

That is incorrect. That is what the term "well-regulated militia" actually meant back then when it was used in the English language.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

We’ve all seen how much you like to toot your own horn.

You cannot point out a single case of me ever doing such a thing.

snood wrote:

If you had ever been in actual combat in the military or a civilian gunfight, you’d take every opportunity to tout what a brave, skilled (and of course 170 IQ genius) warrior you are. The fact that you can’t even readily admit you’ve never personally experienced the chaos and carnage that armed combat can cause

You lack the social skills to comprehend that some things are none of your business, but some things are none of your business.

snood wrote:

just exposes more clearly how much of a poser you are

You cannot point out a single case of me ever pretending to be something that I am not.

snood wrote:

forever extolling the great importance of guns. Forever bleating about how someone’s trying to take your guns.
Pitiful

You might as well accept that no one is going to let you violate their civil liberties.

Go get your fun some other way. Maybe take up a hobby or something.

How about knitting? You could knit me a sweater.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
civil rights include the right to not get shot.

Do you have the right to not be killed by a drunk driver?

Yes you do.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

If the left wants to pursue happiness by trying to violate people's civil liberties for no reason, they are free to try.

But the NRA is still going to prevent the left from actually violating anyone's civil liberties.

Where in the Constitution or the Bill of rights declares the NRA a equal partner of the government. Or did I miss the amendment that declared Wayne La Pierre the ultimate authority on flame throwers, bazookas and M-16's with banana clips. Is there an Amendment XXVIII? Maybe my pocket copy of the Constitution is null.

2 Replies

Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know