monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

You are a despicable inhumane person. You have let your obsession with guns strip your humanity from your person.

Don't be silly. My humanity is just fine. Better than that of most liberals in fact. How many liberals here have relentlessly spoken out in defense of an innocent person in the face of withering adversity?

revelette1 wrote:

These teens have just lived through a harrowing experience and you call them whiny? How dare you?

Those whiny brats were cruel to someone who was suffering until he lashed out and tried to kill them all. And now they want to blame me (because I support civil rights) for a shooting that they were the ultimate cause of.

revelette1 wrote:

I hope we have more and more whiny teens brave enough to take on folks such as your self. They have been giving me hope for the future.

If they take me on, I'll defeat them. And then we'll get to enjoy TV footage of the whiny brats sobbing as their push to violate civil rights gets voted down. I know I'm certainly going to enjoy watching it.

revelette1 wrote:

Your obsessive fetish with guns is of considerably less value that our children's lives and safety.

As if freedom and civil rights were fetishes.

Not to mention the fact that my freedom and civil rights is not the cause of any harm. Your desire to eliminate civil rights isn't about the safety of any children.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Looks like something might actually be done to tighten up gun control.

The NRA gave the government permission to restrict bump stocks via executive order (but not via legislation) some time ago.

They also just gave the legislature permission to pass some sort of law about background checks, but I've been too busy to look up details. Maybe after the Olympics are over.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Which would be great — what I'd really like to see is a serious effort to repeal/rewrite the 2nd Amendment.

Your desire to eliminate freedom and civil rights is reprehensible.

hightor wrote:

I don't think I'm too far out of line by pointing out how many lives have been lost since, to pick an arbitrary date, July 18, 1984 when James Huberty massacred 21 people at a McDonald's restaurant. Comprehensive action at the time might have made a huge difference in the number of mass shooting deaths. You know, assuming the GOP wouldn't have repealed the laws at their first opportunity.

I don't know about out of line, but you are certainly factually wrong. The Second Amendment is not responsible for even one of those deaths.

If your goal is to save lives, try banning private cars from public roads. That'll save a lot of lives.

You only need to focus on guns if your goal is to violate civil rights for no reason.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism.

Wrong. Freedom and civil rights are not anachronisms.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

How many contemporary gun owners have anything to do with this "well regulated militia"?

Militia membership is required only if someone wants the right to have anti-tank bazookas and Stinger missiles.

The Second Amendment protects the right of non-militia members to have weapons suitable for self defense.

hightor wrote:

And the vulgar libertarian interpretation, that it's there so we can resist government tyranny is contradicted by the "security of a free state" phrase.

Yes and no. Unfortunately I don't have time to write a more detailed response right now. I'll come back later tonight and answer this line in more detail.

hightor wrote:

McG had the right idea when he simplified to:

Quote:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is no need for any change.

hightor wrote:

I think that's too open-ended though. I think I'd say there's a right to keep and bear arms, but not an unlimited right,

That is already the case. All rights can already be limited if the limitation can be justified with a good reason. The only things that are prohibited are limitations that have no justification.

So, still no justification for changing the Constitution.

hightor wrote:

and allow for states and localities to set terms based on community standards.

Not if those standards limit our rights without any justifiable reason.

hightor wrote:

We'd need to determine whether this right, no longer connected to any militia, is strictly for self defense, too.

That was determined 300 years ago. What else would it be for?

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time, complicating its meaning.

Luckily the militia as defined by the US Constitution remains exactly the same.

They have the right to keep their weapons in their own homes.

Their duties are strictly limited to: enforcing the law, repelling invasions, and suppressing insurrections.

Their officers are appointed by state governments.

They are trained by state governments.

They are a separate body from the standing army.

0 Replies

I am gratified to see that Oralloy willing identifies himself as a gun lunatic, without having been so labeled by anyone else.

1 Reply

@hightor,

I don't think I will, and as for your wager, don't make me laugh. You have no idea of what my origins might be.

Thou protests too much.

1 Reply

@BillW,

Wow! BillW actually has a dictionary.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Wrong. Freedom and civil rights are not anachronisms.

The 2nd is more of an anachronism than the 18th and it was wisely buried in 1933.

1 Reply

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/02/21/first-day-early-voting-texas-primaries-numbers-are-especially-among-de/amp/

Quote:

On Tuesday, more Democrats cast primary ballots than Republicans on the first day of early voting in the 15 Texas counties with the most registered voters. That hasn't happened since 2008.

Fifty-four percent of the day’s 51,249 in-person votes in those counties Tuesday were cast in the Democratic primaries, according to the Texas secretary of state. In 2014, that number was slightly less than half, and in 2010, Democrats represented just 45 percent of first-day voters.

Meanwhile, the total combined first-day turnout in those counties was up by more than 10,000 compared to the last two mid-term elections.

Quote:

Strong primary turnout for one party doesn’t necessarily replicate itself in a general election. The last time Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans on first-day voting in primaries was 2008 during a heated presidential primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Republicans still swept the state that year.

Still, some of Tuesday's numbers have Democrats excited.

In 2010, 15,523 Democrats in the top 15 counties voted on the primary’s first day of early voting. This year, that figure has nearly doubled, to 28,475. Republican first-day turnout increased over the same period, but only by about 4,000 voters.

In Harris County, home of Houston, Democratic turnout was up 200 percent from 2014, while Republican turnout increased by 25 percent. And in Dallas County, Democratic first-day turnout grew 56 percent from 2014 to 2018, while Republican first-day turnout shrunk 19 percent.

more at the link

0 Replies

You really are quite the clown Very Happy

0 Replies

Something I find very ironic - we have laws requiring plugs put in guns to prevent the killing of to many ducks without reloading but we can't require a law against 30 round magazines for weapons designed to kill humans because why? We are way over stocked on students and need to reduce the population? Way to go NRA and Repuklians!

Or is it, hunters can't be trusted but mass murders are honorable killers?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I don't think D.C. can ignore them.

We have a few useful laws on the books, but no one is enforcing them.

I hope these kids are in lawmakers' faces.

66% of Americans want common sense restrictions enforced.

3 Replies

Melania Trumps' parents are in America, have been here for a long time, and apparently have their Green Cards. The question being, based on what laws? The Family Unification Program; ie, Chain Migration!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I am gratified to see that Oralloy willing identifies himself as a gun lunatic, without having been so labeled by anyone else.

As if freedom and civil rights were lunacy.

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

The 2nd is more of an anachronism than the 18th and it was wisely buried in 1933.

Wrong. Freedom and civil rights will never be anachronisms.

0 Replies

@Lash,

"common sense;" and "a real conversation"

Both bullshit.

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

we can't require a law against 30 round magazines for weapons designed to kill humans because why? We are way over stocked on students and need to reduce the population? Way to go NRA and Repuklians!
Or is it, hunters can't be trusted but mass murders are honorable killers?

It is because you guys keep self-sabotaging by tying your proposals to a useless ban on pistol grips that is pretty easy to defeat (and would be struck down by the courts even if you got it passed).

The magazine restrictions get defeated right along with the ban on pistol grips. And because you guys waste 100% of your energy on pistol grips, you don't have any energy left to push any other measure after the NRA defeats you on that front.

Keep up the good work!

I swear, one day the NRA is going to erect a monument to the people who insist on banning pistol grips at the expense of everything else.

If you ever want to get serious about limiting magazine size, make sure you require all law enforcement to abide by the same limits. There will be much less opposition if you do that.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I don't think D.C. can ignore them.

They can and will.

Lash wrote:

66% of Americans want common sense restrictions enforced.

What is it about people who oppose civil rights or support fascism that they always claim common sense?

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know