President Proposes Study On Media Violence

Stiletto said:
Yes...some people downright despise what the NRA stands for, and they frankly hate that they have to keep saying "I believe in the Second Amendment"...because they really don't, and they're too chickenshit to say it. Wonder why that is?
Click to expand...

Most Americans do support the Second Amendment, that's an absolute fact. Some would stress thinking more about the meaning of whole Amendment however, not just the second half that everyone quotes and the NRA has on it's lobby wall. They leave out the whole nasty "well-regulated" bit.

On the whole though, people support the right to own a gun in the US. What's more in dispute is the level of regulation. I'll show you another similar-looking chart, also from Gallup, here you go.

So right now today, the majority of polled Americans support the right to own a gun, but also think the regulations for a buying a gun should be more strict then they currently are. So apparently you can support the 2nd but still favor regulation after all, which is perfectly in line with what the Amendment says in the first place. They only people that don't get that are the people who want a gun free-for-all and those that want them completely abolished.
 
Hopefully there isn't a connection. Otherwise there are going to be like 10 million nut bags shooting crap up between CoD and BF3
 
When then that would raise the question of whether we should just let them keep on playing, and hope to hell the servers don't go down.
 
el gonso said:
Most Americans do support the Second Amendment, that's an absolute fact. Some would stress thinking more about the meaning of whole Amendment however, not just the second half that everyone quotes and the NRA has on it's lobby wall. They leave out the whole nasty "well-regulated" bit.
Click to expand...

You mean they leave out the "well-regulated militia" bit? I don't remember it saying "the well-regulated right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

People. Not militia. You know who the militia is now? The National Guard, which confiscated weapons from citizens at gunpoint just a few years ago. The second half is quoted because a lot of people bullshit the first half to try to convince others that only official militias were supposed to be armed(which is hilarious because the original militias were never official...they were fucking rebels).

So right now today, the majority of polled Americans support the right to own a gun, but also think the regulations for a buying a gun should be more strict then they currently are. So apparently you can support the 2nd but still favor regulation after all, which is perfectly in line with what the Amendment says in the first place. They only people that don't get that are the people who want a gun free-for-all and those that want them completely abolished.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Gallup poll you cited was very nonspecific with regards to what kind of regulations they would want. When asked, most people are talking about stricter enforcement of background checks, which the vast majority of pro-gun people are in favor of. We believe this can have an impact, provided it does not rob citizens the right to freely buy or sell their firearms to whomever they choose. Mike Bloomberg's oft-quoted "40% of gun sales don't have background checks" deliberately obscures the fact that the majority of them are personal sales, which naturally do not have background checks, and should not. It's really just a move to eliminate more and more privacy around the ownership of firearms, not dissimilar to recent movements by newspapers and media outlets to publish lists of names and addresses of firearms owners and permit holders.

And what the hell is a gun "free-for-all"? More loaded, emotional bullshit that has nothing to do with reality. Eight million concealed carry permits are currently held in the United States, according to the Government Accountability Office's latest estimates. Where's the mass slaughter with all those armed crazies walking around, hmm? If we have such a gun violence problem, why is it mostly contained to inner-city areas where there is high gang activity? More importantly...where are all the anti-gunners when stuff like this happens?

And this?

And this?

Maybe they should read this. In one month, Chicago had 50% as many shooting victims as all victims of semi-automatic rifles in the US for the entire year of 2011. How are background checks going to help Chicago, or DC, or soon...New York?
 
The lengths that the American government will go to to protect big $$$ corporations... Fucking sad for the world.
 
i can tell them what causes it right now

MENTAL ILLNESS

can i have that 10 million dollars now?
hell ill take 1 million
 
MrCaffeineX said:
My favorite part of the President's speech was when he said..."if we can save just one life, it will be worth it." So, in keeping with the spirit of the message and his executive orders:
Click to expand...

more people died do to drunk drivers last year then guns
lets ban alcohol...

oh wait we tried that ... that worked out just great too

ok lets ban cars ... thatll go over like a ton of bricks

or you know would could address the root of the issue see my previous post
 
oh and gun control is worth less

to quote my favorite author
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein; Beyond This Horizon
Click to expand...
 
As someone who has played video games all his life and has yet to commit an act of violence, I condemn this study as a waste of taxpayer dollars. It's been studied to death, all this is, is a dog and pony show to distract from the real issues.

Communist Chicago where Obama is from has the strictest gun laws in the nation, and still does even with Comrade Cuomo from NY passing legislation that just stops short of Chicago. Yet, Chicago has a gun ban and all that, and has the highest body count in the nation.

What a joke. Liberals will throw money at useless studies like this, because they don't want to go after the real source of crime, which is often minorities in the poorest neighborhoods shooting at each other over drugs, turf, and God knows what else.

THAT is the real source of gun violence in this country. Where I live, we have had 1 murder in 21 years. Chicago gets that before the sun is up most days, then two or 3 more times before the sun goes down.

Video game violence? What a joke.
 
Stiletto said:
You mean they leave out the "well-regulated militia" bit? I don't remember it saying "the well-regulated right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

People. Not militia.
Click to expand...

No, militia is the word they use. Not people. Let's not start substituting in new words and just stick with what it says.

You know who the militia is now? The National Guard, which confiscated weapons from citizens at gunpoint just a few years ago. The second half is quoted because a lot of people bullshit the first half to try to convince others that only official militias were supposed to be armed(which is hilarious because the original militias were never official...they were fucking rebels).
Click to expand...

That's not true. Militias predated the Revolutionary War in the US, and were organized units that protected towns and so forth. It doesn't have the loose meaning that gets thrown around today. The revolutionaries (rebels) took control of militias at the outset of the Revolution. But they were organized and militia had a distinct meaning, distinct from minutemen which were a portion of the militia. They were official units, and comparably well paid by the way.

And so I don't get to far away from the Second Amendment, I'll point you to the Articles of Confederation from a dozen years before the Constitution, which includes one Article that inspired the 2nd. It deals mostly with how peacetime and wartime should be handled, but the relevant part you'll recognize is (from Article 6):

"but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents," and you get the picture. I think the 2nd is pretty clear in it's meaning as is, but when you see it's origin there shouldn't be any question at all. When they wrote well-regulated militia, they were not talking about random citizens.

Yes, but the Gallup poll you cited was very nonspecific with regards to what kind of regulations they would want. When asked, most people are talking about stricter enforcement of background checks, which the vast majority of pro-gun people are in favor of.
Click to expand...

Okay

We believe this can have an impact, provided it does not rob citizens the right to freely buy or sell their firearms to whomever they choose. Mike Bloomberg's oft-quoted "40% of gun sales don't have background checks" deliberately obscures the fact that the majority of them are personal sales, which naturally do not have background checks, and should not.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't they? Why should you have the right to sell a dangerous weapon to someone without any kind of background check? That's something you think, but many consider a stupid loophole that enables the worst of society to purchase firearms.

It's really just a move to eliminate more and more privacy around the ownership of firearms, not dissimilar to recent movements by newspapers and media outlets to publish lists of names and addresses of firearms owners and permit holders.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It's a move to create some accountability for firearms where there isn't.

And what the hell is a gun "free-for-all"? More loaded, emotional bullshit that has nothing to do with reality.
Click to expand...

A free-for-all is what the NRA fights for. They oppose every attempt at any kind of control or legislation that affects sales. If someone introduced a bill to abolish all gun laws, they'd back it. That's what a gun free-for-all is. Even now they're trying to sell people on putting them in schools.

Eight million concealed carry permits are currently held in the United States, according to the Government Accountability Office's latest estimates. Where's the mass slaughter with all those armed crazies walking around, hmm? If we have such a gun violence problem, why is it mostly contained to inner-city areas where there is high gang activity? More importantly...where are all the anti-gunners when stuff like this happens?

And this?

And this?

Maybe they should read this. In one month, Chicago had 50% as many shooting victims as all victims of semi-automatic rifles in the US for the entire year of 2011. How are background checks going to help Chicago, or DC, or soon...New York?
Click to expand...

So now the question becomes, are these criminals getting their guns through the normal channels and passing background checks? If they are, then that system is failing.

But we know that's not what's happening. They're getting their supply from the black market, including the unregulated private sale loophole that you want to to protect so badly.
 
How about a prolonged study on government corruption, unnecessary wars, wasteful spending, blah blah blah.
 
el gonso said:
No, militia is the word they use. Not people. Let's not start substituting in new words and just stick with what it says.
Click to expand...

*blinks* Do you know the text of the amendment, or not? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Don't accuse me of substituting in new words if you don't apparently know what words are used. Either you're dishonest or arrogantly uninformed.

And so I don't get to far away from the Second Amendment, I'll point you to the Articles of Confederation from a dozen years before the Constitution, which includes one Article that inspired the 2nd.
Click to expand...

And I'll point you here, which cites numerous figures and publications of the time that distinctly restate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I use quotes to remind you that those are the words, since you appear to be very loose with the truth. The amendment states clearly that a militia was "being necessary to the security of a free state", and therefore being the justification for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And by the way, yes, the National Guard is our official militia, according to the US Government. And yes, they confiscated weapons from private citizens in Katrina.

Why shouldn't they? Why should you have the right to sell a dangerous weapon to someone without any kind of background check? That's something you think, but many consider a stupid loophole that enables the worst of society to purchase firearms.
Click to expand...

First, because a firearm is legal property to own, buy, and sell, as with anything else. Has been since this country began. You have no right to stop people from buying or selling them just because it would make you feel better. Knives are dangerous weapons, too. Should I not be able to sell my knife? Cars are dangerous weapons as well, as I've already pointed out with the 73 victims just a few years ago. Should we not be able to sell those?

No it's not. It's a move to create some accountability for firearms where there isn't.
Click to expand...

Then you're in favor of a gun registry and all guns being added to this register, I take it? If accountability is what you're interested in, that would accomplish your goal pretty soundly, wouldn't it? And what could go wrong with the government keeping a book with all the locations of every weapon in American homes?

A free-for-all is what the NRA fights for. They oppose every attempt at any kind of control or legislation that affects sales. If someone introduced a bill to abolish all gun laws, they'd back it. That's what a gun free-for-all is. Even now they're trying to sell people on putting them in schools.
Click to expand...

That's not a definition at all. That's a vague description of a lobbying group fighting for their cause. I guess the AFL-CIO fights for "union free-for-alls". :rolleyes: Again, you're using nothing more than emotionally charged language with no real basis in reality. The NRA fights for the Second Amendment rights of citizens, and they have done so successfully. 49 states in the Union now have concealed carry. Less than half of them did a few decades ago. More people owning guns, carrying guns...a "free-for-all"...and violence and crime have dropped continuously.

But we know that's not what's happening. They're getting their supply from the black market, including the unregulated private sale loophole that you want to to protect so badly.
Click to expand...

You're right. Maybe if we just increase background checks, then the black market will go away. Too bad that won't affect the shootings that get people like you to care about gun violence, since the weapons used were either gained legally or stolen. And it won't affect the criminals who have been getting weapons through illegal channels for decades.
 
The very concept of a background check is flawed when you really take a step back and think about it.

If someone is so dangerous that they can't be trusted to own a firearm, why are they out on the street in the first place?

If a convicted felon has not been rehabilitated in prison and is still dangerous, why were they let out of jail?

If someone is mentally deranged and was not treated successfully, why are they not still in the insane asylum?
 
zero1945 said:
The very concept of a background check is flawed when you really take a step back and think about it.

If someone is so dangerous that they can't be trusted to own a firearm, why are they out on the street in the first place?

If a convicted felon has not been rehabilitated in prison and is still dangerous, why were they let out of jail?

If someone is mentally deranged and was not treated successfully, why are they not still in the insane asylum?
Click to expand...

Because just because they made a mistake or did something wrong doesn't mean they can't change. If you're going to take that route, then we might as well hang everyone, less money wasted on keeping them alive.
 
Serpent said:
Because just because they made a mistake or did something wrong doesn't mean they can't change. If you're going to take that route, then we might as well hang everyone, less money wasted on keeping them alive.
Click to expand...

and if they can change why not let them have a firearm do they not deserve to defend them selves like every one else?
 
Because they have a history. Just because they can change, doesn't mean they have yet. They are opting to take less risk into the situation by letting them have some freedom, but not complete freedom.
 
Serpent said:
Because they have a history. Just because they can change, doesn't mean they have yet. They are opting to take less risk into the situation by letting them have some freedom, but not complete freedom.
Click to expand...

so your saying that they cant change then....
your logic is circular

they ether changed so should be given access to firearms like every one else
OR
they havent and never will and shouldnt
 
How the hell did you get "haven't changed, yet" to "never will and shouldn't?" Like putting words into another's mouth, do you?

Do you have an exact science to prove a person has changed their ways? If you do, please tell us this extraordinary find. Until then, lets keep the system of allowing them certain liberties while denying others, so they are able to change but should things go bad, they have less capability to induce violence.

I do love your black and white view of the world, though. It must be nice, for a time.
 
Every one of you individuals who are quoting the militia paragraph as basis for your argument that second amendment rights hinge in any way on participation or association with a militia are just plain wrong and misinformed.

The supreme court ruled that,

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about 200 years ago, I'm talking about June 26, 2008.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v_Heller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
 
Lith1um said:
Every one of you individuals who are quoting the militia paragraph as basis for your argument that second amendment rights hinge in any way on participation or association with a militia are just plain wrong and misinformed.

The supreme court ruled that,

I'm not talking about 200 years ago, I'm talking about June 26, 2008.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v_Heller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
Click to expand...

Then count the four dissenting Justices as among the misinformed, because that's precisely what they argued in Stevens' dissent. With 5 republican-appointed Justices sitting they were outnumbered in a vote, nothing more.
 
Stiletto said:
First, because a firearm is legal property to own, buy, and sell, as with anything else. Has been since this country began. You have no right to stop people from buying or selling them just because it would make you feel better. Knives are dangerous weapons, too. Should I not be able to sell my knife? Cars are dangerous weapons as well, as I've already pointed out with the 73 victims just a few years ago. Should we not be able to sell those?
Click to expand...

Cars actually do have a legal requirement for the seller and buyer to register with the state during a private sale. When you sell your car, you do not sell your license plate. Legally, the new seller is required by law to register for a new license plate. Nothing even close to that is required for guns, AKA actual killing machines.

Stiletto said:
Then you're in favor of a gun registry and all guns being added to this register, I take it? If accountability is what you're interested in, that would accomplish your goal pretty soundly, wouldn't it? And what could go wrong with the government keeping a book with all the locations of every weapon in American homes?
Click to expand...

The US government does that with cars. Thanks to the NRA, all documentation for guns sales are still done on paper with no centralized database. Hundreds of wasted man-hours are spent tracking down gun owners looking through paper documents whenever a gun is found at the scene of a crime.

So basically, you don't want the government to know how many guns you have, and are willing to let murders get away with crimes to enable that. Terrific.
 
ballistic90 said:
Cars actually do have a legal requirement for the seller and buyer to register with the state during a private sale. When you sell your car, you do not sell your license plate. Legally, the new seller is required by law to register for a new license plate.
Click to expand...

Only if you intend to drive it. Just like you need a permit in most states to carry a weapon. If you're going to keep either at home, there's no state requirement, apart from the transfer of the title(which technically isn't even a requirement since you can just get a new title at anytime with the consent of the previous owner).

Nothing even close to that is required for guns, AKA actual killing machines.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

The US government does that with cars.
Click to expand...

You mean VIN numbers? Yeah, they do that with guns, too. They're called serial numbers, and it's a federal offense to deface the serial number. That's not enough for you?

Thanks to the NRA, all documentation for guns sales are still done on paper with no centralized database. Hundreds of wasted man-hours are spent tracking down gun owners looking through paper documents whenever a gun is found at the scene of a crime.
Click to expand...

It's not "thanks to the NRA". Since when is the NRA responsible for government infrastructure and its efficiency?

So basically, you don't want the government to know how many guns you have, and are willing to let murders get away with crimes to enable that. Terrific.
Click to expand...

So basically, you want the government to know how many guns everyone has, and are willing to let that information lead to mass confiscation and tyranny over the populace. Terrific.

See? I can make stupid inferences, as well. I didn't mean any of it, but you, of course, meant yours. People like you make gun violence into "if you don't support more gun control, you want people to die". It's a despicable, vile debate tactic intended to either shame or dehumanize your opponent, rather than argue merits of one position. As Ben Shapiro correctly stated about Piers Morgan, you are standing on the graves of gun crime victims in order to satisfy your emotional issues with what happened. If you really cared about gun crime victims, you'd have been paying attention to the 95% of gun crime victims that are not featured on the news for weeks. :rolleyes:
 
el gonso said:
Then count the four dissenting Justices as among the misinformed, because that's precisely what they argued in Stevens' dissent. With 5 republican-appointed Justices sitting they were outnumbered in a vote, nothing more.
Click to expand...

You mean like John Roberts, the Republican-appointed chief justice who voted in favor of ObamaCare? Nice try at trying to reduce something like this to partisan bullshit, but you failed utterly. I've already linked you to multiple references from 200 years ago and beyond clearly stating that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not the militia. You have still refused to even acknowledge that the Second Amendment clearly states it's the right of the PEOPLE, and now you cowardly snipe about who appointed the Supreme Court justices because it doesn't suit your preferred worldview.
 
Holy fuck they have been doing this since I was a fucking kid back when dooms and fucking night trap and all the other games. (AKA most of them they got the content of the games wrong since they never played the fucking things.) and that was like fucking 20 years ago and every kid they did not want playing it back then is now an adult and then some.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqM-RIgwOAE

it begins again.

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/07/dayintech_0729/


I remember this clear as hell watching it on TV and they still have not even done the fucking study 20 years later.?

You can study me as a test subject I played night trap and it sucked and you don't kill the girls in the game you save them congress that joe liberman that was bitching about the game back then is stil sitting in his chair in washington some how. This of course explains how nothing gets done None of the fuckers ever get out of office and they fight for years over crap and don't do the jobs.
 
Stiletto said:
*blinks* Do you know the text of the amendment, or not? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Don't accuse me of substituting in new words if you don't apparently know what words are used. Either you're dishonest or arrogantly uninformed.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the first half, which you know full well so don’t play games. That's where it says well-regulated militia, being the qualifier for the second half - which is why there’s even a first half to begin with. They could have omitted it entirely had they simply wanted to ensure a universal right to bear arms, but they didn’t, and as pointed out nearly the same language was used in its predecessor years before. So it’s not meaningless decoration.

By the way: If you're going to start name-calling I'm just going to chalk you up as frustrated and leave you be. And punctuating with things like *blinks* for dramatic effect isn't very dramatic. I saw a few your other posts and get the impression you’ll be furiously wiki’ing facts in between posts and get really angry, but I’ll keep it civil.

And I'll point you here, which cites numerous figures and publications of the time that distinctly restate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I use quotes to remind you that those are the words, since you appear to be very loose with the truth. The amendment states clearly that a militia was "being necessary to the security of a free state", and therefore being the justification for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You forgot to post your link to whatever you were trying to show me. In any case, let me clarify that I don’t oppose a citizen’s rights to bear arms, just that there need to be sensible regulations in place. Even if the 2nd was never written at all I’d still be fine with. It’s the not the guns themselves that bother me.

What I do oppose is the notion that the 2nd was intended as a catch-all blank check against any type of regulation.

And by the way, yes, the National Guard is our official militia, according to the US Government. And yes, they confiscated weapons from private citizens in Katrina.
Click to expand...

The NG would certainly qualify as a militia, but I'm not really going to go down some anti-government thing with you. I was on active duty and the reserves in the Army, although not my state NG, so I would probably fit in with whatever you'd be railing against there.
The Katrina issue invites plenty of debate, though I’d point out that they were under their equivalent of martial law in a post-disaster setting. There was full-on chaos with armed gangs unchecked in the streets even before the NG stepped in, as they were support the city’s police directive.

First, because a firearm is legal property to own, buy, and sell, as with anything else. Has been since this country began. You have no right to stop people from buying or selling them just because it would make you feel better. Knives are dangerous weapons, too. Should I not be able to sell my knife? Cars are dangerous weapons as well, as I've already pointed out with the 73 victims just a few years ago. Should we not be able to sell those?
Click to expand...

Cars, great example. Well, we license people to drive cars. Generally we test their eyesight, knowledge of driving laws, and then make sure they have some competency to drive with a road test before they're issued a license. After that, you've got to maintain and update your driver's license, register any cars you purchase before driving them, and fill out sales paperwork when you buy or sell them privately. Occasionally, you even have to have your car in for inspection in many states. VIN numbers help track and account for a vehicles' history and prior ownership.

Then you're in favor of a gun registry and all guns being added to this register, I take it? If accountability is what you're interested in, that would accomplish your goal pretty soundly, wouldn't it? And what could go wrong with the government keeping a book with all the locations of every weapon in American homes?
Click to expand...

That depends on how paranoid you are. I don't spend my life worrying that the Feds or some foreign invaders are going to come kick my door and oppress me, at least any time soon. And frankly, I think some people that do might be talking just a bit more than they'd walk in such a situation. Guns are confiscated all the time because of a restraining order or whatever other issue. Typically, "from my cold, dead hands" becomes "here you go, sir."
By the way - did you know that guns were confiscated by Revolutionary forces from private owners who wouldn’t align with their cause? Or that federal and state governments took door-to-door surveys of gun owners in the 1700sand 1800s, with the Bill of Rights already in place? The concept of gun accountability isn’t a new thing and wasn’t precluded by the 2nd either, even in those times.

That's not a definition at all. That's a vague description of a lobbying group fighting for their cause. I guess the AFL-CIO fights for "union free-for-alls". :rolleyes: Again, you're using nothing more than emotionally charged language with no real basis in reality. The NRA fights for the Second Amendment rights of citizens, and they have done so successfully. 49 states in the Union now have concealed carry. Less than half of them did a few decades ago. More people owning guns, carrying guns...a "free-for-all"...and violence and crime have dropped continuously.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, a free-for-all is what the NRA wants. They fight any kind of regulation that will impact sales, no matter how small or how common-sense. They’ve fought to eliminate background checks, age restrictions, and to allow sales to convicted felons – these are just simple, easily-verified facts. Why even put up a pretense that this is some freedom fight? They don’t care beyond what affects sales, and in effect they’re arming the same people they urge you to defense yourself against.
Click to expand...
 
Stiletto said:
You mean like John Roberts, the Republican-appointed chief justice who voted in favor of ObamaCare? Nice try at trying to reduce something like this to partisan bullshit, but you failed utterly.
Click to expand...

Yes, that republican-appointed John Roberts. He's a conservative, that doesn't mean he's voting right 100% of the time. There's a conservative majority in on that Court, of course there's a partisan consideration. That's your reasoning? He votes for ObamaCare and he's no longer a conservative?

I've already linked you to multiple references from 200 years ago and beyond clearly stating that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not the militia.
Click to expand...

Actually you didn't. You forgot to post the links.

You have still refused to even acknowledge that the Second Amendment clearly states it's the right of the PEOPLE, and now you cowardly snipe about who appointed the Supreme Court justices because it doesn't suit your preferred worldview.
Click to expand...

Already addressed prior post. Second, the makeup of the Supreme Court is one of the key factors in US gun legislation, and one of the biggest determinants of appointments for Justices. There's no cowardly sniping anything, it's just a fact.

I don't know if you have to go search this stuff in between my posts but these aren't secrets or wild theories. The NRA is extremely active in lobbying for judges and other appointments. They realize the importance of these efforts to their cause, even if you don't.
 
el gonso said:
We were talking about the first half, which you know full well so don’t play games.

By the way: If you're going to start name-calling I'm just going to chalk you up as frustrated and leave you be.
Click to expand...

Yet again, you avoid the very fact that 2A specifically defines the right of the people, not the militia, to bear arms. You will not even acknowledge it. Too bad. It's right there, and you accused me of making up words. You called me a liar, I proved otherwise, and you haven't the decency to admit it.

You then go on to accuse me of paranoia later in your post, then talk about the NRA being for "free-for-all"s, which you continue to fail to define, because it's loaded, functionally meaningless language designed to create images in the mind to support your emotional viewpoint. You chalk up their fight against gun control to be "against legislation which affects sales". Guess what? All gun legislation affects gun sales. Even mentioning legislation affects sales, as backed up by the last several years of gun sales in the United States skyrocketing, the more people like you talk about cracking down. Saying the NRA only fights legislation that affects gun sales is like saying the AARP only fights legislation that affects Social Security and Medicare. Wake up, Captain Obvious. That's what special interest groups do. Acting like they're some grand conspiratorial body while calling me paranoid is the height of stupid hypocrisy.

Since I posted the link immediately after the post you addressed, and you made zero attempt to click it, despite being right there...I'm going to mirror your condescension, chalk you up as unreasonable and leave you be.
 
el gonso said:
There's a conservative majority in on that Court, of course there's a partisan consideration.
Click to expand...

Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, but is by no means conservative. You make up a lot of shit, you know that?
 
Stiletto said:
Yet again, you avoid the very fact that 2A specifically defines the right of the people, not the militia, to bear arms. You will not even acknowledge it. Too bad. It's right there, and you accused me of making up words. You called me a liar, I proved otherwise, and you haven't the decency to admit it.
Click to expand...

I never called you a liar. As it reads, the right to bear arms is prefaced with qualifier in a well-regulated Militia. My point, the initial one I posted that you decide to take issue with in the first place, was that the first part was the one usually overlooked and ignored.

You then go on to accuse me of paranoia later in your post, then talk about the NRA being for "free-for-all"s, which you continue to fail to define, because it's loaded, functionally meaningless language designed to create images in the mind to support your emotional viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Why all this characterization of my emotional viewpoint? I thought I was stating the obvious - the NRA has opposed all manner of gun regulation. Do you think that isn't the case? If so, can you support it?

You chalk up their fight against gun control to be "against legislation which affects sales". Guess what? All gun legislation affects gun sales. Even mentioning legislation affects sales, as backed up by the last several years of gun sales in the United States skyrocketing, the more people like you talk about cracking down. Saying the NRA only fights legislation that affects gun sales is like saying the AARP only fights legislation that affects Social Security and Medicare.
Click to expand...

What does AARP have to do with this? Sure, they're a special interest group. You've made an analogy but not a point.

[quote[Wake up, Captain Obvious. That's what special interest groups do. Acting like they're some grand conspiratorial body while calling me paranoid is the height of stupid hypocrisy.[/quote[

Well I can see you're getting bent out of shape and resorting to your typical name calling, I'm not going to get you any more riled up. I just hope that at some point you might consider the idea that a few laws designed to help keep criminals from acquiring guns is not an attack on your personal liberties or an insult.
 
el gonso said:
Well I can see you're getting bent out of shape and resorting to your typical name calling.
Click to expand...

That's why I have him on ignore. Can't have a debate with him without his insults and provocations. Not worth getting riled up or banned over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top