Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, I get it....you don't really have a good a good argument other than "gun nut"," gun fondler", etc.
As I have posted before if you can show me where this is posted on CD I will gladly denounce it.
If not then you probably should take your ball and go home.
In other words for that poster any one who owns a gun is a "gun nut".....
I have been on C-D for while now, I have to say I haven't seen many "gun nuts" or pages of "gun nut threads." I think it's safe to say jmqueen lives in a very bad part of the US or is a parrot for Diane Feinstein.
I read it. Nowhere does she spew ignorant drivel about massacred children being collateral damage in the noble fight to protect the Second Amendment, argue that gun victims are "exploiting" their tragedy for having the nerve to speak up, or bleat about guns being the price of "freeeeeeedum."Nowhere does she brag about her vast, manly arsenal.
Annie had no need to defend the 2nd. There was no orchestrated attack on the 2nd in her lifetime.
There is no gun law that will prevent psychotic individuals from carrying out mass murders.
The thing that gets "gun rights advocates" labeled nuts is a tendency to flatly reject any thought of any kind of regulation regarding gun usage
That's because we've reached a limit.
Regulations have been passed time and time again since 1934. For nearly a century, we have been giving ground, in the name of public safety.
The laws haven't worked.
So now when we're asked to capitulate even more, the reflex is to - as you put it - flatly reject these new laws. It's not that we don't want to see and live in a safer country, but you must PROVE that new law A or new law B is actually going to accomplish its goal. Virtually ALL suggested laws are nothing more than "feel good" laws, often presented after a single tragic incident as a knee-jerk reaction, that will not have the desired effect.
If you want cooperation with getting some new laws passed, the first thing you have to do is admit that most previously passed laws do not work, and promote their repeal. Unless and until you do that, we will not agree on passing any more laws which, as history has shown quite clearly, will only serve to curtail the rights of the law abiding. The criminals - the very people you're trying to control - will ignore them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerbear30
(This is of course heavily ironic given the second amendment's inbuilt stipulation about regulation).
It's not a "stipulation," it's a preamble. Nevertheless, it does not mean what you think it means. I suggest you look into the founders' intentions on this matter, and the meaning of the word "regulate" both at the time and in context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerbear30
Gun nuts have no precedent for the government taking all their guns, but they will still sit there and forecast its coming in the future based on no evidence whatsoever.
I suggest you examine what happened in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina blew through.
That's not to say that I'm concerned about some massive confiscation scheme that's just around the corner, but to say that it can't happen is not only ignorant of the fact that it DID happen - less than a decade ago - but it's also a very naive and dangerous position to take.
I respect those people a hell of a lot more than I do the gun fondlers on this board who think guns are the solution to problems and are toys to be collected so they can show off to their friends and try to impress anonymous Internet strangers, believe that dead six-year-olds are collateral damage in the fight for "freeeeeeedum," and believe that all gun victims should shut up and not exercise their First Amendment rights to get control of the carnage because "they're toooooo emotional, wahhhhh."
Your sides uses children both living and dead to further and agenda that will do nothing be limit liberty, and create more victims, We don't care what you see or think about us, we are nothing to compromise our rights yet again, since The Sullvan Act of 1911 we have been "compromising" with the Civilian Disarmament complex.
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,860,921 times
Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
I read it. Nowhere does she spew ignorant drivel about massacred children being collateral damage in the noble fight to protect the Second Amendment, argue that gun victims are "exploiting" their tragedy for having the nerve to speak up, or bleat about guns being the price of "freeeeeeedum."Nowhere does she brag about her vast, manly arsenal.
These are all things that I mentioned, and all of them come directly from gun nuts here on C-D and other rightwing forums.
Really, you can keep asking me to explain, but I know you already get it and are being obtuse in order to get in something that you probably consider great wit. I decline to play such silly games.
I'm still waiting for the CD links where this was written.
The Obama administration has not made enforcing current gun laws a top priority. However, he did make gun control a top priority. That is not good.
After the mid terms he will lose any chance for doing anything, the dems will lose the house and the senate over Obamacare and its epic failure, which they should, 2016 they will lose the white house as well.
Americans are the kids in this cartoon.
Why do we vote for liberalism again?
Also more and more Gun Owners are see the Democratic Party by and large as the Anti Gun Party, and we are not like Rinos either the vote of Gun Owners will be for Constitutional Conservatives via va Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, the way Ted took down Diane Frankenstein, epicly awesome, needless to say he has my vote.
During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. Yet many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding, granting just 5.3% of the total authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
