patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,245,222 comments by 14,870 users - HeadSet, Patrick, PeopleUnited, RayAmerica online now
invite responseComments 1 - 40 of 74 Next » Last » Search these comments
1
Shaman
2019 Aug 7, 7:23am
Shaman
2019 Aug 7, 7:23am
That’s it in a nutshell. The Left wants a total ban on private ownership of guns. The Right wants to protect the 2nd Ammendment. That’s all there is to the issue.
4
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 7, 7:46am
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 7, 7:46am
The simple test the proponents of so-called "reasonable gun control" fail all the time: ask them what are they willing to offer in exchange for, say, their coveted "universal background check" or "high-capacity magazine ban" and the answer will be - "nothing". They basically practice Russian style of negotiations: all take and no give.
5
clambo
2019 Aug 7, 8:16am
When the US Constitution was written, the founders assumed most people would be reasonable and responsible.
In some colonies, owning a gun was already not just permitted; it was required in the same way that smoke detectors are required today. The idea was self defense was not a right but also a responsibility since there was no large police force.
The founders likely couldn't imagine our gangs, inner cities, and other social problems.
I doubt that the founders would object to a teenage nut having no access to guns while taking psych medications.
I doubt the founders would object to a ban on a drum magazine or bump stocks which make a rifle perform like a machine gun.
What amazes me is how people who hate guns really have no idea how they can defend themselves from an attack; I saw this a few months ago when I heard my neighbor yelling at some bums who were trying to camp in another's yard one morning.
The aggressive bum yelled back and said he would return someday, etc. and I was a bit astounded at the naive neighbor having no way to act if they attacked him.
Typically almost, he's a rail thin vegetarian who would lose in any conflict; he had yelled my name to alert me to the situation. He would have lost any fight in seconds to an aggressive bum.
Later I asked him why he had no pepper spray at least to use in case they attacked him. Pepper spray won't knock a guy down but a guy who is blind won't be able to punch you very well. I have a pepper spray in my car always and sometimes carry one if I'm walking in my little town in case I need something besides my swift feet.
I have a handy little "disposable" gun; the Glock 42 will work sufficiently and can be easily concealed if I'm confronted. I won't brandish it but it will be good enough if needed and I don't care if the cops confiscate it for "evidence" forever.
In some colonies, owning a gun was already not just permitted; it was required in the same way that smoke detectors are required today. The idea was self defense was not a right but also a responsibility since there was no large police force.
The founders likely couldn't imagine our gangs, inner cities, and other social problems.
I doubt that the founders would object to a teenage nut having no access to guns while taking psych medications.
I doubt the founders would object to a ban on a drum magazine or bump stocks which make a rifle perform like a machine gun.
What amazes me is how people who hate guns really have no idea how they can defend themselves from an attack; I saw this a few months ago when I heard my neighbor yelling at some bums who were trying to camp in another's yard one morning.
The aggressive bum yelled back and said he would return someday, etc. and I was a bit astounded at the naive neighbor having no way to act if they attacked him.
Typically almost, he's a rail thin vegetarian who would lose in any conflict; he had yelled my name to alert me to the situation. He would have lost any fight in seconds to an aggressive bum.
Later I asked him why he had no pepper spray at least to use in case they attacked him. Pepper spray won't knock a guy down but a guy who is blind won't be able to punch you very well. I have a pepper spray in my car always and sometimes carry one if I'm walking in my little town in case I need something besides my swift feet.
I have a handy little "disposable" gun; the Glock 42 will work sufficiently and can be easily concealed if I'm confronted. I won't brandish it but it will be good enough if needed and I don't care if the cops confiscate it for "evidence" forever.
6
BayArea
2019 Aug 7, 8:28am
BayArea
2019 Aug 7, 8:28am
Be careful leaving that pepper spray in a hot car in the summertime.
The car would be a total loss (and that’s assuming you weren’t in it driving at the time which could mean you may be a total loss with the car)
The car would be a total loss (and that’s assuming you weren’t in it driving at the time which could mean you may be a total loss with the car)
7
clambo
2019 Aug 7, 8:46am
The car never gets hot in California; in Florida I kept the piece handy and not the spray.
8
FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden
2019 Aug 7, 9:25am
There are no reasonable proposals, they are all unreasonable emotional knee jerk reactions.
9
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 10:21am
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 10:21am
BayArea says
Let me see if I can follow your logic
Leftist Step 1) Reasonable Gun Control
Leftist Step 2) Take away all guns.
(factual note: The left side of the political spectrum not only includes a lot that don't want to take away all guns - it's probably even a majority of the left side of the political spectrum - but maybe you can accept that it's at least significant part of this group)
Regardless of whether you accept this as correct IT's not needed to see the actual flaw in your logic.
Logic: IF the political right plus people that want freedom to have a gun that aren't on the right have enough political power even to prevent reasonable gun laws (leftist step 1) out of fear of slippery slope, how would they ever ever EVER not have the political power to prevent Leftist Step 2 above, after reasonable gun control laws had been passed ?
Keep in mind all the people that want freedom to have guns and also reasonable gun laws enough to vote for step 1 (and aren't paranoid about the slippery slope - including many on the left side of the political spectrum) would join them in opposing leftist step 2.
That is, how ever many people and politicians there are that are now able to prevent step one (out of fear of slippery slope), there would be so many more on board for preventing step 2. IT just makes no sense at all.
Plus the fact, that if there ever was to be a future time when step 2 could come, after step one had been passed, if that time arrives at some point when even step one hasn't been passed, it would make taking all the guns away more necessary in the eyes of those that now have a political majority for taking away all guns. How does not having reasonable gun laws help prevent a political movement to take away all guns ? Conversely, how does having reasonable gun laws make taking all guns away easier ?
In other words reasonable gun laws should make it more possible (not less) to have so many armed Americans out in to perpetuity.
BayArea says
Frankly, it terrifies me that they do not see any fault with this logic as an American.
Let me see if I can follow your logic
Leftist Step 1) Reasonable Gun Control
Leftist Step 2) Take away all guns.
(factual note: The left side of the political spectrum not only includes a lot that don't want to take away all guns - it's probably even a majority of the left side of the political spectrum - but maybe you can accept that it's at least significant part of this group)
Regardless of whether you accept this as correct IT's not needed to see the actual flaw in your logic.
Logic: IF the political right plus people that want freedom to have a gun that aren't on the right have enough political power even to prevent reasonable gun laws (leftist step 1) out of fear of slippery slope, how would they ever ever EVER not have the political power to prevent Leftist Step 2 above, after reasonable gun control laws had been passed ?
Keep in mind all the people that want freedom to have guns and also reasonable gun laws enough to vote for step 1 (and aren't paranoid about the slippery slope - including many on the left side of the political spectrum) would join them in opposing leftist step 2.
That is, how ever many people and politicians there are that are now able to prevent step one (out of fear of slippery slope), there would be so many more on board for preventing step 2. IT just makes no sense at all.
Plus the fact, that if there ever was to be a future time when step 2 could come, after step one had been passed, if that time arrives at some point when even step one hasn't been passed, it would make taking all the guns away more necessary in the eyes of those that now have a political majority for taking away all guns. How does not having reasonable gun laws help prevent a political movement to take away all guns ? Conversely, how does having reasonable gun laws make taking all guns away easier ?
In other words reasonable gun laws should make it more possible (not less) to have so many armed Americans out in to perpetuity.
BayArea says
Frankly, it terrifies me that they do not see any fault with this logic
10
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 7, 10:24am
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 7, 10:24am
marcus says
Let's try my test on marcus: assuming "universal background check" is the "reasonable gun control" you want, will you be willing to accept "Federal shall-issue CCW permits" as a trade off?
BayArea saysFrankly, it terrifies me that they do not see any fault with this logic as an American.
Let me see if I can follow your logic
Leftist Step 1) Reasonable Gun Control
Let's try my test on marcus: assuming "universal background check" is the "reasonable gun control" you want, will you be willing to accept "Federal shall-issue CCW permits" as a trade off?
11
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 10:40am
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 10:40am
marcus says
BayArea says
We saw this show already. LGBTQABC123. It started with decriminaliztion, then legal equality, then civil partnership, then partnership was second class citizenship give us marriage, then Bake the Cake Bigot, then no Sex Discrimination became no "Gender Identity" Discrimination, then Drag Queen Kids, and now we're getting calls to decriminalize "Intergenerational Romance" and "Wax my Lady Balls, you Bigoted woman!"
Red Flag will be so abused. It'll start with Red Flag for real nuts, then become AUTOMATIC following a divorce, you'll have to spend thousands to get your RKBA back, then it will be made permanent not temporary, then that permission will be like Mass and a huge wait and process, then it won't issue unless you're a connected VIP like in NYC/Chicago, and the 2nd Amendment will be effectively erased.
At each step of LGBTQABC123 we were told the next step wasn't desired, and that to think so made us paranoid right-wing nutjobs. Then as soon as one step was just about taken, the same Left who told us "no further" started immediately demanding the next step, calling people who opposed it paranoid right-wing nutjobs.
What we do need is to raise the legal and voting age back to 21 or ideally 25.
Let me see if I can follow your logic
Leftist Step 1) Reasonable Gun Control
Leftist Step 2) Take away all guns.
BayArea says
Fact: The left wants a total ban on guns. Step#1 of achieving that is getting the right to agree to reasonable gun measures. These are measure that take one small step towards a total ban on guns. With each public incident or mass shooting, the left will call for more gun control measures. This will continue in a never ending campaign.
We saw this show already. LGBTQABC123. It started with decriminaliztion, then legal equality, then civil partnership, then partnership was second class citizenship give us marriage, then Bake the Cake Bigot, then no Sex Discrimination became no "Gender Identity" Discrimination, then Drag Queen Kids, and now we're getting calls to decriminalize "Intergenerational Romance" and "Wax my Lady Balls, you Bigoted woman!"
Red Flag will be so abused. It'll start with Red Flag for real nuts, then become AUTOMATIC following a divorce, you'll have to spend thousands to get your RKBA back, then it will be made permanent not temporary, then that permission will be like Mass and a huge wait and process, then it won't issue unless you're a connected VIP like in NYC/Chicago, and the 2nd Amendment will be effectively erased.
At each step of LGBTQABC123 we were told the next step wasn't desired, and that to think so made us paranoid right-wing nutjobs. Then as soon as one step was just about taken, the same Left who told us "no further" started immediately demanding the next step, calling people who opposed it paranoid right-wing nutjobs.
What we do need is to raise the legal and voting age back to 21 or ideally 25.
12
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 10:47am
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 10:47am
Notice also that pepper spray and tazers are often illegal were guns are illegal, despite the number of crimes committed with those items is almost nil.
DUI is another great example of how reasonable becomes overreach, it started with don't drink and drive, no open containers, then stronger penalties, then breathalyzers, BAC lowered from .4/.3 to .2, then huge warrantless/causeless checkpoints, then mandatory forcible blood tests on the side of the road, and BAC to as low as .1 in some places.
DUI is another great example of how reasonable becomes overreach, it started with don't drink and drive, no open containers, then stronger penalties, then breathalyzers, BAC lowered from .4/.3 to .2, then huge warrantless/causeless checkpoints, then mandatory forcible blood tests on the side of the road, and BAC to as low as .1 in some places.
13
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 10:56am
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 10:56am
HonkpilledMaster says
Terrible analogy. But assuming the analogy is not ridiculous, and that having rights to own guns is sort of like homosexuality being illegal, where should it have stopped ?
Should being gay still be illegal ? I guess you have to say yes, because starting down the slippery slope apparently causes us to go all the way.
That's your point right ?
While a majority of Americans are okay with gay marriage, what percentage of Americans do think favor drag queen kids or intergenerational romance ? Do you really fear these things will catch on ?
Yep, LGBTQABC123. It started with decriminaliztion, then legal equality, then civil partnership, then partnership was second class citizenship give us marriage, then Bake the Cake Bigot, then no Sex Discrimination became no "Gender Identity" Discrimination, then Drag Queen Kids, and now we're getting calls to decriminalize "Intergenerational Romance" and "Wax my Lady Balls, you Bigoted woman!"
Terrible analogy. But assuming the analogy is not ridiculous, and that having rights to own guns is sort of like homosexuality being illegal, where should it have stopped ?
Should being gay still be illegal ? I guess you have to say yes, because starting down the slippery slope apparently causes us to go all the way.
That's your point right ?
While a majority of Americans are okay with gay marriage, what percentage of Americans do think favor drag queen kids or intergenerational romance ? Do you really fear these things will catch on ?
14
FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut
2019 Aug 7, 11:10am
FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut
2019 Aug 7, 11:10am
marcus says
That is not true. When California out of all the states voted, people voted to ban gay marriage.
It was unbanned later by small vocal minority through courts and judge bribes when activists organized and paid off the right politicians.
Go put that proposition back to voters, (formerly proposition 8) and you'll have it banned again.
There's your evidence, because those are facts!
Your facts, are not facts, just hearsay and conjecture.
While a majority of Americans are okay with gay marriage
That is not true. When California out of all the states voted, people voted to ban gay marriage.
It was unbanned later by small vocal minority through courts and judge bribes when activists organized and paid off the right politicians.
Go put that proposition back to voters, (formerly proposition 8) and you'll have it banned again.
There's your evidence, because those are facts!
Your facts, are not facts, just hearsay and conjecture.
15
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 11:11am
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 11:11am
marcus says
Wonderful Analogy.
At Civil Partnership. Certainly "Sex" shouldn't have been changed to "Gender Identity" which many orgs and regulators did, most problematically the EEOC.
Now a man with a beard and lipstick in a dress can preside at a loved one's funeral, mocking a mockery of it, and the Director can't fire him/her because he "identifies" as female. This case is literally in the courts right now, it's not hypothetical, the EEOC went after the Funeral Director for exactly this.
We could also do "More culturally inclusive Education" which now means the obliteration of most of the Western Canon, replaced by Toni Morrison bullshit, and what little remains is both critical and focused on bullshit (like Betsy Ross over George Washington).
Terrible analogy. But assuming the analogy is not ridiculous, and that having rights to own guns is sort of like homosexuality being illegal, where should it have stopped ?
Wonderful Analogy.
At Civil Partnership. Certainly "Sex" shouldn't have been changed to "Gender Identity" which many orgs and regulators did, most problematically the EEOC.
Now a man with a beard and lipstick in a dress can preside at a loved one's funeral, mocking a mockery of it, and the Director can't fire him/her because he "identifies" as female. This case is literally in the courts right now, it's not hypothetical, the EEOC went after the Funeral Director for exactly this.
We could also do "More culturally inclusive Education" which now means the obliteration of most of the Western Canon, replaced by Toni Morrison bullshit, and what little remains is both critical and focused on bullshit (like Betsy Ross over George Washington).
16
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 7, 11:15am
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 7, 11:15am
Iranian_Oil_Burse says
@marcus: Are you ignoring my question? Shall I assume the answer is "no"?
marcus saysBayArea saysFrankly, it terrifies me that they do not see any fault with this logic as an American.
Let me see if I can follow your logic
Leftist Step 1) Reasonable Gun Control
Let's try my test on marcus: assuming "universal background check" is the "reasonable gun control" you want, will you be willing to accept "Federal shall-issue CCW permits" as a trade off?
@marcus: Are you ignoring my question? Shall I assume the answer is "no"?
17
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 11:25am
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 11:25am
I'm also waiting for Marcus to tell me which Democratic Candidate he supports and which ones are the "Moderates"
18
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 11:30am
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 11:30am
Iranian_Oil_Burse says
I don't understand the question.
Why should federal CCW permits be a tradeoff for allowing common sense gun laws ?
But yes, probably no. Keep it at state and local imo.
@marcus: Are you ignoring my question? Shall I assume the answer is "no"?
I don't understand the question.
Why should federal CCW permits be a tradeoff for allowing common sense gun laws ?
But yes, probably no. Keep it at state and local imo.
19
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 11:34am
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 11:34am
HonkpilledMaster says
Actually I sort of agree, but I don't have a problem with marriage. But if your slippery slope argument makes sense, you should be saying that only by keeping homosexuality illegal could we prevent a majority eventually in favor of child drag gueens.
At Civil Partnership.
Actually I sort of agree, but I don't have a problem with marriage. But if your slippery slope argument makes sense, you should be saying that only by keeping homosexuality illegal could we prevent a majority eventually in favor of child drag gueens.
20
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 7, 11:34am
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 7, 11:34am
marcus says
QED: all take and no give.
Iranian_Oil_Burse says@marcus: Are you ignoring my question? Shall I assume the answer is "no"?
I don't understand the question.
Why should federal CCW permits be a tradeoff for allowing common sense gun laws ?
But yes, probably no. Keep it at state and local imo.
QED: all take and no give.
21
socal2
2019 Aug 7, 11:47am
marcus says
No - but it also shouldn't be illegal to be against gay marriage and the gay lifestyle.
Should being gay still be illegal ? I guess you have to say yes, because starting down the slippery slope apparently causes us to go all the way.
No - but it also shouldn't be illegal to be against gay marriage and the gay lifestyle.
22
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 11:48am
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 11:48am
Iranian_Oil_Burse says
I don't know if you saw Patricks recent thread, but polls of gun owners show that a majoirty are in favor of sensible gun laws. It's the gun lobby and their bought politicians that stand in the way.
Do you get it ? We aren't talking a majority of Americans, we're talking a majority of gun owners that want sensible gun laws.
What percentage of people or gun owners for that matter are in favor of federally issued CCW permits ?
When someone is for something that a majority are in favor of calling it "all take" makes no sense.
QED: all take and no give.
I don't know if you saw Patricks recent thread, but polls of gun owners show that a majoirty are in favor of sensible gun laws. It's the gun lobby and their bought politicians that stand in the way.
Do you get it ? We aren't talking a majority of Americans, we're talking a majority of gun owners that want sensible gun laws.
What percentage of people or gun owners for that matter are in favor of federally issued CCW permits ?
When someone is for something that a majority are in favor of calling it "all take" makes no sense.
23
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 11:58am
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 11:58am
socal2 says
It isn't. Unless by against you mean for example holding hate rallies against gays or otherwise trying to prevent gay peoples "pursuit of happiness." When does being an activist against gay lifestyle cross the line in to "hate speech" I don't know the answer to that. I guess I would rather see peer pressure preventing people from being assholes, in some cases, rather than laws. But some assholes just have to test the boundaries.
Consider these assholes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Eventually there were local laws passed to prevent them from protesting at the funerals of gay servicemen killed in war serving the U..S.
No - but it also shouldn't be illegal to be against gay marriage and the gay lifestyle.
It isn't. Unless by against you mean for example holding hate rallies against gays or otherwise trying to prevent gay peoples "pursuit of happiness." When does being an activist against gay lifestyle cross the line in to "hate speech" I don't know the answer to that. I guess I would rather see peer pressure preventing people from being assholes, in some cases, rather than laws. But some assholes just have to test the boundaries.
Consider these assholes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Eventually there were local laws passed to prevent them from protesting at the funerals of gay servicemen killed in war serving the U..S.
24
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 7, 12:00pm
RWSGFY
2019 Aug 7, 12:00pm
marcus says
... which includes Federal shall-issue CCW permit.
marcus says
It does: your side wants only restrictions on the Federal level but absolutely against anything which would protect gun rights in the lefty-ran states. You trust in Feds doing good job when it comes to restricting the rights of people to buy guns in the red states but you filp around and don't trust the Feds when it comes to allowing good citizens to carry guns in the blue states where it made all but impossible by the state legislators.
My test is perfect in exposing this hypocricy of the left and their style of "negotiating for sensible gun laws": all take, no give.
I don't know if you saw Patricks recent thread, but polls of gun owners show that a majoirty are in favor of sensible gun laws.
... which includes Federal shall-issue CCW permit.
marcus says
When someone is for something that a majority are in favor of calling it "all take" makes no sense.
It does: your side wants only restrictions on the Federal level but absolutely against anything which would protect gun rights in the lefty-ran states. You trust in Feds doing good job when it comes to restricting the rights of people to buy guns in the red states but you filp around and don't trust the Feds when it comes to allowing good citizens to carry guns in the blue states where it made all but impossible by the state legislators.
My test is perfect in exposing this hypocricy of the left and their style of "negotiating for sensible gun laws": all take, no give.
25
socal2
2019 Aug 7, 12:01pm
marcus says
How about the cake bakers and photographers in Colorado and Oregon that were sued and drum out of business for not offering their services for gay weddings? They still have cases going before the Supreme Court.
How about the lady being sued for not waxing a tranny's balls in Canada?
It isn't. Unless by against you mean for example holding hate rallies against gays or otherwise trying to prevent gay peoples "pursuit of happiness."
How about the cake bakers and photographers in Colorado and Oregon that were sued and drum out of business for not offering their services for gay weddings? They still have cases going before the Supreme Court.
How about the lady being sued for not waxing a tranny's balls in Canada?
27
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 12:17pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 12:17pm
I'll accept Red Flag Federal Gun Laws in return for both Bourse's Federal CCW (that States are powerless to stop) AND
A filing by the Democratic Party stating they won't introduce Gun Laws in Congress for the next 25 years OF ANY KIND, and issues a $5 Billion Dollar + 5% Annual Interest Bond against non-compliance guaranteed by the DNC, DLC, and each and every State Democratic Organization individually and collectively.
The money to be paid directly to the Republican Party and NRA if any Democrat introduces a Gun Control Bill in either house.
A filing by the Democratic Party stating they won't introduce Gun Laws in Congress for the next 25 years OF ANY KIND, and issues a $5 Billion Dollar + 5% Annual Interest Bond against non-compliance guaranteed by the DNC, DLC, and each and every State Democratic Organization individually and collectively.
The money to be paid directly to the Republican Party and NRA if any Democrat introduces a Gun Control Bill in either house.
29
exfatguy
2019 Aug 7, 12:51pm
One way to start would be to raise the minimum age to buy a semi-automatic rifle to age 24. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles can still be bought at age 18.
Sure, this doesn't stop someone from stealing or borrowing a gun, but at least it gives a few year buffer to determine if someone is violently mentally ill or not. If they're prone to snap, they'd find some other way to act out before age 24, hopefully with less easy of a time.
Sure, this doesn't stop someone from stealing or borrowing a gun, but at least it gives a few year buffer to determine if someone is violently mentally ill or not. If they're prone to snap, they'd find some other way to act out before age 24, hopefully with less easy of a time.
30
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 12:59pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 12:59pm
exfatguy says
I like this one. Make it 25. Also voting age as well.
In fact, you have to be employed 20+ hrs a week for the past 4 years to vote, or be collecting Social Security Retirement, a Pension, etc.
Skin in the Game.
One way to start would be to raise the minimum age to buy a semi-automatic rifle to age 24. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles can still be bought at age 18.
I like this one. Make it 25. Also voting age as well.
In fact, you have to be employed 20+ hrs a week for the past 4 years to vote, or be collecting Social Security Retirement, a Pension, etc.
Skin in the Game.
31
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 1:10pm
marcus
2019 Aug 7, 1:10pm
Iranian_Oil_Burse says
Fail
If a majority of gun owners (not just a majority of Americans) are for sensible gun laws, then there is no "take" here by the left, and no "give" by gun owners, when you give them what they actually want.
OF course when you give both sides what they want, there is no give and take. It's just take take.
I see what you tried to do there. And I get it. The problem is you don't account for the fact that even a majority of gun owners want sensible gun safety laws - they always did.
My test is perfect in exposing this hypocricy of the left and their style of "negotiating for sensible gun laws": all take, no give.
Fail
If a majority of gun owners (not just a majority of Americans) are for sensible gun laws, then there is no "take" here by the left, and no "give" by gun owners, when you give them what they actually want.
OF course when you give both sides what they want, there is no give and take. It's just take take.
I see what you tried to do there. And I get it. The problem is you don't account for the fact that even a majority of gun owners want sensible gun safety laws - they always did.
32
GNL
2019 Aug 7, 2:07pm
GNL
2019 Aug 7, 2:07pm
HEYYOU says
Well, well, well it's HeyYou with profound knowledge again. This is exactly why the right will not want to deal with you. Why are liberals so fucking stupid? Liberals fuck themselves in the ass far too often.
a href="/post/1326334&#comment-1608368">Iranian_Oil_Burse saysThe simple test the proponents of so-called "reasonable gun control" fail all the time: ask them what are they willing to offer in exchange for, say, their coveted "universal background check" or "high-capacity magazine ban" and the answer will be - "nothing". They basically practice Russian style of negotiations: all take and no give.
"exchange" - Fewer Rep/Cons' children shot in mass shootings in schools from large capacity,high speed ,hot lead throwing "arms" . Not fair? OK! Add fewer Rep/Cons being shot at concerts,shopping,theaters or just anywhere in public. OR! Rep/Cons can take their chances with shooters they don't know or see thinking that Rep/Con gun love can protect them.
My thoughts & prayers are with stupid fucking Republicans as they venture out into 400,000,000? gun America.
Well, well, well it's HeyYou with profound knowledge again. This is exactly why the right will not want to deal with you. Why are liberals so fucking stupid? Liberals fuck themselves in the ass far too often.
33
GNL
2019 Aug 7, 2:09pm
GNL
2019 Aug 7, 2:09pm
exfatguy says
Age has nothing to do with it. Fucking people like you should think before spewing bullshit.
One way to start would be to raise the minimum age to buy a semi-automatic rifle to age 24. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles can still be bought at age 18.
Sure, this doesn't stop someone from stealing or borrowing a gun, but at least it gives a few year buffer to determine if someone is violently mentally ill or not. If they're prone to snap, they'd find some other way to act out before age 24, hopefully with less easy of a time.
Age has nothing to do with it. Fucking people like you should think before spewing bullshit.
34
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 2:39pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 2:39pm
If the majority of people were for sensible LGBTQCIA123ABC rights...
We ended up with Wax my Lady Balls, Bigot! and Funeral Parlors that have to allow Male Ushers to wear dresses and lipstick.
We ended up with Wax my Lady Balls, Bigot! and Funeral Parlors that have to allow Male Ushers to wear dresses and lipstick.
35
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 2:41pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 7, 2:41pm
If the majority of people were for sensible LGBTQCIA123ABC rights...
We ended up with Wax my Lady Balls, Bigot! and Funeral Parlors that have to allow Male Ushers to wear dresses and lipstick.
How about sensible Immigration Reform (total amnesty, minimal enforcement) or sensible cultural accomodation (pray to Mecca, kids -- and America was established by EVIL! WHITE! DEAD! MALES!)
We ended up with Wax my Lady Balls, Bigot! and Funeral Parlors that have to allow Male Ushers to wear dresses and lipstick.
How about sensible Immigration Reform (total amnesty, minimal enforcement) or sensible cultural accomodation (pray to Mecca, kids -- and America was established by EVIL! WHITE! DEAD! MALES!)
36
Patrick
2019 Aug 7, 6:50pm
Patrick
2019 Aug 7, 6:50pm
OccasionalCortex says
@OccasionalCortex if you go to https://patrick.net/edit_profile and look at the bottom under "ignored users" do you see marcus listed?
Patrick, the 'ignore' feature is not working again as I am now starting to see his posts even tho I have marcus set on 'ignore'.
@OccasionalCortex if you go to https://patrick.net/edit_profile and look at the bottom under "ignored users" do you see marcus listed?
37
GNL
2019 Aug 7, 8:23pm
GNL
2019 Aug 7, 8:23pm
marcus says
You're being obtuse.
HonkpilledMaster saysAt Civil Partnership.
Actually I sort of agree, but I don't have a problem with marriage. But if your slippery slope argument makes sense, you should be saying that only by keeping homosexuality illegal could we prevent a majority eventually in favor of child drag gueens.
You're being obtuse.
38
GNL
2019 Aug 7, 8:30pm
GNL
2019 Aug 7, 8:30pm
HonkpilledMaster says
I think this is giving up too much. Unless, that is, the red flag law is tight. Meaning in no way ambiguous. A neighbor can't simply get mad and call the cops to raid your home. A Dr. or at least 3 different people of sound mind and over, at least, 18 years of age.
I'll accept Red Flag Federal Gun Laws in return for both Bourse's Federal CCW (that States are powerless to stop) AND
A filing by the Democratic Party stating they won't introduce Gun Laws in Congress for the next 25 years OF ANY KIND, and issues a $5 Billion Dollar + 5% Annual Interest Bond against non-compliance guaranteed by the DNC, DLC, and each and every State Democratic Organization individually and collectively.
The money to be paid directly to the Republican Party and NRA if any Democrat introduces a Gun Control Bill in either house.
I think this is giving up too much. Unless, that is, the red flag law is tight. Meaning in no way ambiguous. A neighbor can't simply get mad and call the cops to raid your home. A Dr. or at least 3 different people of sound mind and over, at least, 18 years of age.
Comments 1 - 40 of 74 Next » Last » Search these comments
Fact: The left wants a total ban on guns. Step#1 of achieving that is getting the right to agree to reasonable gun measures. These are measure that take one small step towards a total ban on guns. With each public incident or mass shooting, the left will call for more gun control measures. This will continue in a never ending campaign.
The right will not go along with reasonable gun control measures because they know that the campaign from the left will never cease. And so the right understands that there should be no negotiation on the topic with the left.
This was explained to me recently by a friend, who owns guns, and donates to the NRA.
Take the CA gun roster, which covers which guns can be legally bought/sold in CA. Without any logic, this roster includes certain guns while excluding other guns that function in exactly the same manner. The size of this roster has changed over the years, it’s only gotten smaller.
And so the statement that both sides should be able to agree on reasonable gun reform is a lie because the left will never stop their campaign for a total gun ban. With each incident in the media, the left will continue their campaign to increase restrictions until there is only one law remaining: total ban for civilians.
Neither side will ever trust the other to be reasonable on the topic.
It’s alarming to me how many of my leftist friends and colleagues believe that only police and government should own guns. Frankly, it terrifies me that they do not see any fault with this logic as an American.
“The police will be there to protect me”
“This is the United States of America, not Cambodia. The government will never harm us”