It's amazing that liberals are so anti-stereotyping to the point of overzealousness, except when they are the ones doing the stereotyping. Carry on.
30% of Republican voters want to bomb Agrabah
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
I think he's saying that pro-lifers who actually adopt kids from an orphanage give credibility to their views, but I may be mistaken.
"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?"
Matt: 5:46
TOTAL BEATDOWN!
I've never heard the car scenario before, awesome point. @poke2001 as usual makes a halfwit point (using a very regulated activity to compare to gun control) that blew up in his face like Wile E. Coyote. It's been raised about 50 times on these boards, and the arguments are always the same. Then lapse into hysteria and overstatements.
If we could have the functional equivalent of car regs (licensure, registration, liability insurance, etc.) transposed on guns, I'd agree to it in a heartbeat.
@JonnyVito I agree re: paltry liability limits. The best counter is to maximize your UM coverage. I hate the insurance industry but you should always take the UM coverage. Especially in Oklahoma.
I've never heard the car scenario before, awesome point. @poke2001 as usual makes a halfwit point (using a very regulated activity to compare to gun control) that blew up in his face like Wile E. Coyote. It's been raised about 50 times on these boards, and the arguments are always the same. Then lapse into hysteria and overstatements.
If we could have the functional equivalent of car regs (licensure, registration, liability insurance, etc.) transposed on guns, I'd agree to it in a heartbeat.
@JonnyVito I agree re: paltry liability limits. The best counter is to maximize your UM coverage. I hate the insurance industry but you should always take the UM coverage. Especially in Oklahoma.
I wasn't giving my opinion, I was merely trying to clarify what Sys said.
You gonna preach that on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood tomorrow morning?
Your point would be spot on if it were possible to adopt an aborted fetus.
Wrong thread @syskatine, but thanks for the reply as I know you're probably busier than the rest of us slackers. I do have a couple real questions for you.
Tell me how this liability insurance for owning a gun works in your mind. I don't think any insurers exist that issue policies for that. Or are we talking general liability and do those policies specifically include gun ownership provisions? And if we're comparing to vehicles, would I have to have insurance to just own a gun because that's not even required for car ownership unless I operate it on public roads and/or have a lien holder. Will my rates be determined by what type, how many, and the purpose of the guns I own much like for cars? What will be the penalty for not having it and how will authorities know and/or enforce the requirement? Would it only apply to conceal and carry permit holders?
Serious questions. Folks who throw this stuff out as a viable option should have real life solutions and answers and that's why I ask.
Are you saying it SHOULDN'T be bombed??? Did you watch the Aladdin movies? Jafar is absolutely insane - the sooner we get rid of that psychopath, the better.
Interesting. So you would agree with original intent regarding the 2nd amendment?
I've explained in a previous thread in response to you regarding my views on the right to bear arms.
Yeah, we've gone around and around about it until we could each probably write out the debate script. I just didn't see a nexus between the car issue and original intent. Maybe that's not your intent. Intent can be hard to divine.
Insurance, licensing, etc are something the states regulate. Original intent was the same for the right to bear arms, state regulated. You never replied to my last post on the subject which kind of surprised me considering I slammed the McDonald v. Chicago decision and accused the court of judicial activism.
Thor, the wigs n' britches crowd was wrong about lots of stuff. Some of it they were right about, but times changed. We have standing armies, and didn't then. We don't have muskets now. they would be the first to say, "Think, don't follow." And what about well regulated do you not get???
This gal does as good as any addressing the usual, other arguments:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001
I remember your quote about McDonald -- anything authored by Alito is just mental gymnastics. I despise him. He's the worst judge we've had in a while, and that's saying something.
What part of regulated by the states do you not get?
Your argument regarding what the founders would say is weak and nothing more than conjecture. There's plenty of writings by them pointing out the propensity of governments to commit horrible atrocities and oppress the people. I highly doubt they would take a head in the sand "our government is no longer a threat" point of view. In fact, you say think don't follow. If you were to think you'd realize that unchecked governments pose a greater threat to loss of life than any one lunatic with a gun. The real followers here are those that are following thier government and supporting the effort to disarm the people on a national scale.
Your argument regarding what the founders would say is weak and nothing more than conjecture. There's plenty of writings by them pointing out the propensity of governments to commit horrible atrocities and oppress the people. I highly doubt they would take a head in the sand "our government is no longer a threat" point of view. In fact, you say think don't follow. If you were to think you'd realize that unchecked governments pose a greater threat to loss of life than any one lunatic with a gun. The real followers here are those that are following thier government and supporting the effort to disarm the people on a national scale.
Last edited:
Well, the part about "regulated by the states." Where do you get that language?
The preamble to the bill of rights. The bill of rights says what the federal government cannot do. The states weren't limiting themselves. They were limiting the federal government. The 2nd gave the states the ability to have militias so they could defend themselves should the federal government get oppressive. So a state like Illinois that wants to ban gun ownership is well within its right to do so under original intent. its a state issue and the federal government has no constitutional authority on the matter.
Muskets, wood teeth, lanterns, smallpox, cursive letters, sail boats..... we've moved on. You're obsessed with an anachronism. The plain text of the amendment plainly discusses security of the state via a well regulated militia. What's so insane is that you demand fealty to an anachronism, and then twist the obvious wording and context of the anachronism to suit your objective.
Nothing was twisted, it's fact and you know it. If the bill of rights were intended to limit the states then incorporation via the 14th would be unnecessary. The only twisting of words occurs in your profession and has been done to use the 14th to incorporate and gain central power. It's also the profession that hates original intent of law because it does not like being limited in scope and power.
You acting as if a federal republic is out dated is a joke at best. Our movement toward a true democracy and national government is completely outdated, older, and worse yet, proven to fail time after time, yet followers like yourself continue to embrace said anachronism and claim enlightenment while levying this absurd accusation toward opponents while doing so. You think you have some kind of trump card because of technological advancement and sadly enough, you fail to realize that technological advancement has jack squat to do with political theory and sociology.
You acting as if a federal republic is out dated is a joke at best. Our movement toward a true democracy and national government is completely outdated, older, and worse yet, proven to fail time after time, yet followers like yourself continue to embrace said anachronism and claim enlightenment while levying this absurd accusation toward opponents while doing so. You think you have some kind of trump card because of technological advancement and sadly enough, you fail to realize that technological advancement has jack squat to do with political theory and sociology.
Speaking of plain text
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of Its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:
Pretty clear the It they are talking about is the federal government. You're correct about well regulated but you've completely jumped the shark on the who is to regulate it.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of Its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:
Pretty clear the It they are talking about is the federal government. You're correct about well regulated but you've completely jumped the shark on the who is to regulate it.
