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.
You ought to know better than that by now. You should have long ago figured out that these Marxist ideologues couldn’t care less about children, or crime, or anything else, but only use whatever talking points they believe will further their goal of total abolishment of the 2nd Amendment rights ….one little bite at a time, and one little lie after another.
These people are purely dishonest, and deceitful to their very core. Just like the OP’s rather transparent tactic of presenting this loaded question.
When applying basic common sense, you must understand that allowing any criteria or requirement be attached to ANY right, be it gun ownership or any other, you effectively destroy that right, by turning it into a privilege.
Rights cannot be denied, but privileges can be. And all of the “common sense gun laws” require you to first toss common sense out the window, in order to embrace them. Every stinking one of the proposals, no matter how well argued, are the direct attempt to destroy your right to a firearm, and make it a privilege that you need someone else to approve.
So, stop kidding yourself. If you have to ask for someone else’s permission to do something, that something is not a right you possess.
Except the OP is a libertarian, not a Marxist ideologue.
I was asking a rhetorical question that apparently went over your head, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. You do know what a rhetorical question is? It was not a statement.
No its in response to the video I included in my title thread. Its an interview with Jon Stewart and a OK state politician who has been voting to lift restrictions on firearms in OK and voting to ban trans related stuff like drag queen shows under the guise of protecting children. I am all for the 2nd amendment but if its all about protecting children guns are a problem. A bigger problem than drag queens or books at Target.
You apparently don't know what "rhetorical" means. Regardless, you took two extremist views and tried to conflate them together in order to propagate some sort of message, which apparently has to do with rights infringement. It was a convoluted mess. Bottom line: there is nothing hypocritical about wanting reasonable rights for firearm owners and reasonable rights of expression for drag show participants. The two concepts are not at odds. You're trying to create a solution looking for a problem.
It is perfectly consistent to lift some firearm restrictions while adding restrictions to drag shows. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Gun rights restrictions have evolved over centuries. Freedom of speech regarding drag shows targeting children is relatively new. Not sure why you're trying to equate the two. It's a very tenuous, if not outright false, equivalency.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,545 posts, read 12,517,887 times
Reputation: 10464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound
I agree. But I think the danger of drag shows is overblown.
Drag shows are about sex and are disparaging of women, you're good with kids being exposed to it. that is you, not me. I don't care at all if there are drag shows ... for adults only, not children.
Quote:
Its a fact. And its a price of freedom.
A very recent fact and just edged out vehicle deaths. But you didn't care enough about vehicle deaths to previously speak out about them.
Quote:
I think it is hypocritical to have thread after thread here claiming that trans activists are the greatest current threat to children and at the same time do nothing about guns. Personally I believe the vast majority of trans people just want to be left alone. They don't want to convert children or cause any harm. And I take the freedom of owning firearms just like the freedom to get in my car and driver safety at all costs.
The gun store I buy at here in my town does push new gun owners to take safety classes, give you flyers on upcoming classes.
Show me where all of these people say that "trans activists are the greatest current threat to children"?
They aren't the greatest threat, but they are a threat and that threat is increasing.
I will say I honestly don't know what certain people get out of intentionally trying to expose children to drag shows... how they think that's going to help promote a healthy society going forward. Drag shows are for trashy people, and that's my objective factual (or subjective opinion lolz) statement of the day. I have my first amendment right to equate these people at the same level as say a redneck. Weirdo lefties and weirdo righties wanting to be weird and spread their weirdness around society.
I guess it's different when the establishment oligarchs sanction the behavior and their orders to promote it come right from the top down. It makes me wonder what their agenda is...
Likewise, the Second Amendment has its restrictions... and rightfully so. An 8-year-old kid can't legally purchase a firearm. An adult can't purchase a bazooka or a 155mm howitzer. An adult can't purchase a machine gun without several restrictions... and rightfully so.
Rightfully so, my ass. The 2nd Amendment actually states very clearly that there “shall not” be restrictions. The term “infringe” is defined as ”to limit or restrict” therefore as the language clearly states … “ …. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be (infringed) limited or restricted”.
So now that we have established that infringement is by definition, an action which limits or restricts …. what part of “Shall Not” do you believe suggests that it means anything other than NO ? The 2A does not say “… shall not be infringed, unless we have a good excuse to”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas863
And, of course, there are restrictions in other areas of our laws. Speed limits are not absolute. Drug laws are not absolute. Even fornication is not absolute. If you think it is, try having sex with an 8-year-old kid and see where that gets you. Murder is, of course, illegal... except when used in self-defense.
So, anyone who thinks that ANY law is absolute is likely mistaken because there are exceptions to just about everything.
You are conflating issues of codified legislative law, with Constitutional Rights and Protections, which are not remotely connected, or analogous to one another.
But the heart of the problem is pretty clear … if grown ass adults cannot even agree on what basic concepts like “NO” and “Shall Not” means, how the hell can we possibly agree on anything else?
Even children understand what NO means, so there should not be one breathing adult that doesn’t.
There are very few laws in our society that are absolute. Even the constitution is not absolute in ALL respects. "Freedom of speech doesn't give someone the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater... unless it's actually on fire. Nor does freedom of speech give someone the right to defamation of another person via slander or libel. So, the constitution is not absolute in "freedom of speech".
Likewise, the Second Amendment has its restrictions... and rightfully so. An 8-year-old kid can't legally purchase a firearm. An adult can't purchase a bazooka or a 155mm howitzer. An adult can't purchase a machine gun without several restrictions... and rightfully so.
And, of course, there are restrictions in other areas of our laws. Speed limits are not absolute. Drug laws are not absolute. Even fornication is not absolute. If you think it is, try having sex with an 8-year-old kid and see where that gets you. Murder is, of course, illegal... except when used in self-defense.
So, anyone who thinks that ANY law is absolute is likely mistaken because there are exceptions to just about everything.
Sigh.... This is such a tired trope.
1) there is no law specifically against yelling fire in a crowded theater.
2) what is against the law is causing a riot or otherwise endangering people.... that's why you can't throw lit firecrackers OR shoot a gun in a crowded theater either.
3) even if you did pass a law specifically against yelling fire in a crowded theater, it still wouldn't be a restriction on speech, as one could still say the word fire, or stand on ones own property and yell FIRE at the top of ones lungs if they wish.
Unlike bans on certain types of firearms, which seek to ban them entirely, even on your own property.
Many? Can you quantify it better than that and provide a source?
Show us a poll of the percentage of gun owners that want no regulations for starters.
Frankly, I think you're grossly overstating things and creating a strawman but let's see what information you have to share with us.
Many is defined as more than 10. So certainly that is true. I do try to choose my words carefully. Seriously about 10% are against universal background checks so I would probably use that figure. If you are against background checks you are probably against any kind of regulation. So 250 million adults, 25 million are against universal background checks. About 70% of GOP support this. Some polls have dems at 98% support. However they tend to do these polls right after major mass shootings so real support might be lower.
I am asking this as a person who is a strong supporter of protecting all the amendments and the constitution itself. Even if it means voices I don't like get heard or people can do things in public that are not my cup of team. I am going out to the shooting range to practice with my latest hand gun I purchased last week.
But Jon Stewart in the attached video has a point. Governments are passing laws banning drag queen shows because they "might" harm children. Yet those same politicians vehemently protect the second amendment despite the fact that firearms kill more children than anything else. It is hypocrisy. Either its all about protecting children even if it infringes on some peoples constitutional rights or you adhere strictly to the constitution. I choose the latter.
Let parents decide what is best for their kids. Which means their child might be a victim of gun violence or might be influenced by a drag performer to go trans. As Ron Paul has said for years. You either have freedom or safety. You cannot have both at the same time.
Eh, aren't there laws against kids owning guns and having access to them as well?????? There are also restrictions on how old you are to buy alcohol, cigarettes or go to NC-17 movies or strip clubs. Has nothing to do with constitutional rights.
A very recent fact and just edged out vehicle deaths. But you didn't care enough about vehicle deaths to previously speak out about them.
More than just "new", it is specifically designed to fit a narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302
There is a large difference between fact and a specifically designed statistic. It is hyperbolic at best and is true only if the selected age range is 1-19 years old.
Also capping the age range at 17, instead of 18 or 19 alters the result, as children aged 17 and under have a greater risk of dying of vehicle-related injuries.
Gun related deaths for ages 6 to 11 account for just 7% of the total, as does 5 and under.
I am asking this as a person who is a strong supporter of protecting all the amendments and the constitution itself. Even if it means voices I don't like get heard or people can do things in public that are not my cup of team. I am going out to the shooting range to practice with my latest hand gun I purchased last week.
But Jon Stewart in the attached video has a point. Governments are passing laws banning drag queen shows because they "might" harm children. Yet those same politicians vehemently protect the second amendment despite the fact that firearms kill more children than anything else. It is hypocrisy. Either its all about protecting children even if it infringes on some peoples constitutional rights or you adhere strictly to the constitution. I choose the latter.
Let parents decide what is best for their kids. Which means their child might be a victim of gun violence or might be influenced by a drag performer to go trans. As Ron Paul has said for years. You either have freedom or safety. You cannot have both at the same time.
Hate to point this out to you but, ever since the COVID lockdown, it was clearly shown that "constitution" and other laws are advisory only and can be violated at will, with total tolerance from vast majority of population.
Your question, as the result, is moot. All those great symbols of freedom don't matter anymore. They are just political and talking slogans. No practical application.
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.
