Is it time to talk about guns?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Balbus, Mar 24, 2021.

  1. Eric!

    Eric! Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    24,939
    Likes Received:
    28,229
    You think so? I think he’s for real.
     
    Toecutter likes this.
  2. Toecutter

    Toecutter Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    Take a look into his blog
     
    mcme and Eric! like this.
  3. Eric!

    Eric! Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    24,939
    Likes Received:
    28,229
    You know what, bro? You might be right. His writing style is totally different on his blog- compared to that article. Now that I think about it, that article does have a bit of sarcasm to it.
    Doofed again. Fuck!
     
    wrat1, mcme and Toecutter like this.
  4. mcme

    mcme lurker

    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    815
    I didn't pay close enough attention either...
     
    Eric! likes this.
  5. Eric!

    Eric! Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    24,939
    Likes Received:
    28,229
    He watched too many movies
     
  6. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,989
    Likes Received:
    15,206
    Glad you brought that up.

    Here is the definition of an assault weapon as per the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 in regards to long guns:
    Now if the bottom rifle has two or more of the above, then it is considered an assault weapon as per the noted law.
    but all that is beside the point. Let's go back to my previous post and I'll modify it to fit your pictures..
    The complete failure to recognize contradictions.
    A perfect example is the statement that bottom weapon is no more dangerous than the top weapon.
    Yet when I then suggest we get rid of the bottom weapon as the top weapon is just as dangerous and would therefore serve the same purpose and work just as well, and it would make the anti gun nuts happy yet still allow you to do the same thing, as you contend both guns are the same except for looks, you don't agree.

    Why is that? I don't get it.
     
  7. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,989
    Likes Received:
    15,206
    Never said that. I did hint that I am applying logic and a better thinking process, although I didn't come out and say it.

    Why not tell me what is wrong with my thinking process and logic in post #1975 ?
    Maybe I'm wrong.
    Tell me where I erred.
     
  8. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,989
    Likes Received:
    15,206
    I don't quite follow this.
    Yes the Bill of Rights contains amendments.
    Yes, I agree the Constitution can be changed.
    Yes, I agree my opinions aren't always right or at least seen to be right by others.
    The part I don't get is your claim that you think the Constitution can be changed. I had thought you considered the 2nd to be set in stone?
    Am I wrong? You agree we can just throw the 2nd out if we want to?
    Well that went over your head.
    Allow me to explain. The idea that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to shoot him negates an entire spectrum of other ways to stop a bad guy with a gun. For instance don't let him get a gun in the first place.
    No, the first thing you do is take away the stick and make sure he or she can't get it again. Then you go on to discipline and instruction.
    Another one over your head.
     
  9. Toecutter

    Toecutter Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    I do not recall making such a statement, perhaps you can refresh my memory.
     
  10. Toecutter

    Toecutter Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    You answered my question, thank you
     
    mcme likes this.
  11. Eric!

    Eric! Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    24,939
    Likes Received:
    28,229
    Why do you consider your thinking process is “better” than everyone else’s?
     
    Toecutter and mcme like this.
  12. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,989
    Likes Received:
    15,206
    Did I say everyone?
    I think it is better than the people who are against reasonable gun laws and can't offer rational reasons for doing so.
    Now, if they can come up with valid reasons, that would be good.

    But this talk about assault weapons being the same as every other weapon, they just look scarier,
    Knifes are just as dangerous as guns.
    Why don't we outlaw cars?
    Only criminals shoot people, not law abiding citizens (who then become criminals).
    The idea that the 2nd can't be changed, reinterpreted, or thrown out all together.
    Violence is the only solution to violence.

    Stuff like that makes me question the thought process of many people.


    And by the way, what are your thoughts about post #1975 ?
     
  13. Eric!

    Eric! Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    24,939
    Likes Received:
    28,229
    I’m not sure which post that is, it doesn’t show up on my iPhone
     
  14. mcme

    mcme lurker

    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    815
    I think I'm beginning to understand...
    What's been the law of the land and worked for roughly 250 years offends you and must be changed right now by just completely eliminating it. To heck with the processes in place to make changes, you're just going to stomp your feet in this thread and label everyone who doesn't goose step along with you as a less great as you thinker, until everyone in the country sees it your way.
    Carry on.
     
  15. Eric!

    Eric! Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    24,939
    Likes Received:
    28,229
    Ok, I went back and did a little digging for what you were asking my opinion about, and I think it was about this pic below. Truthfully, I don’t know what the message is, because repeal ultimately means “to get rid of” and I don’t think that is the intent of our government. If that was the intent, it would have been “repealed” a long time ago. Other than that, it’s some macho - “make me feel good about myself” advertisement- and a cry for un-needed help. What is the need for a militia? (I see “Idaho Militia” at the bottom right.) What purpose do they truly serve, when we have a professional federal and State level military? Can someone come to their defense, and tell me exactly what they do? The Impressions I’ve had about them is that they’re predominantly tied to white supremacy groups, or at least their ideology. Correct me if I’m wrong.



    upload_2022-6-16_9-10-38.jpeg
     
  16. mcme

    mcme lurker

    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    815
    I'm pretty sure posted that picture. I don't have any defense for it,or any thoughts on it at all. I had a thought it'd stir up more thoughts, reactions and discussion on the firearms in America topic and it seems to have done its job.
     
    Eric! likes this.
  17. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,989
    Likes Received:
    15,206
    Which law are you referring to?
     
  18. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,989
    Likes Received:
    15,206
    I was asking you about your opinion about my post concerning:
    The belief that the Constitution is inviolate,
    The belief that the Constitution is not open to interpretation,
    The complete failure to recognize contradictions,
    The lack of understanding of magnitude,
    and

    The reliance on force and violence to solve all problems.

    But I'll respond to the picture you posted.
    Let's look at the text:
    The fact that the government would even consider repealing the Second Amendment is the very reason for which it was written.

    So this goes back to my post about the belief that the Constitution is inviolate. It assumes there is no mechanism written into the Constitution that allows for change. Further it implies that a change to the Constitution is anti American and therefore a reason to overthrow the government by force of arms.
    And it supposes that that's why the 2nd was written, so that if a change to the 2nd was ever even considered we should take up arms and shoot people in the government.
    It's just too ridiculous to even consider to be rational.

    Second it implies someone seriously wants to repeal the 2nd. Again ridiculous.
    As you stated it's just a silly picture intended to stir up the rubes and make them fear that all their guns will be taken by some storm troopers in government garb.

    Now onto militias.
    There are two types of militias in the U.S., well organized government sanctioned such as the Idaho National Guard which is controlled by the state government and private civilian vigilante ones such as the Proud Boys. I suspect the Idaho Militia flag in the picture represents a private civilian vigilante militia although I can't find anything on them.
    Perhaps they are the North Idaho Militia who seem to be some sort of religious militia as they place a god above the laws of the government.
    And unlike well organized state militias which are formed to protect the state and national government they reserve the right to overthrow those very governments, if they see fit.
    They believe in violent overthrow:
    They don't believe the government has a right to "force" obedience to any law it may make, so much for police forces. In other words the government has no right to make laws.
    And so on. Lots of contradictions and silly talk and rules.

    So you are correct in your assessment of these private militias as far as I'm concerned.
     
    Tishomingo and Eric! like this.
  19. Toecutter

    Toecutter Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,779
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    Gunman who killed El Monte police officers faced probation violation at time of shooting


    Law enforcement sources identified the gunman as Justin Flores, 35. Arrested in 2020 and charged with possessing methamphetamine, a handgun and ammunition, Flores pleaded no contest in February 2021 to possessing a firearm as a felon, records show. Prosecutors dropped the other charges.

    Flores, who previously served two prison terms for burglary and car theft, had been prohibited from carrying a gun since 2011.

    Though the gun conviction alone could have sent him to prison for three years, Flores was instead sentenced to two years’ probation and 20 days in jail, which he’d already served, a prosecutor said at a plea hearing. Flores was ordered not to possess any weapons, including guns, ammunition and knives, a transcript of the hearing shows. He was warned that if he breached these terms, he could be sent to prison for up to three years.
     
  20. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    5,740
    Likes Received:
    6,207
    Because he obviously thinks he can be more effective posting memes and pictures that by-pass the reasoning process and appeal to emotion and simplistic thinking. This meme, for example, is blatantly fallacious. Anyone familiar with our Framers and the process of putting together the Constitution knows that they didn't think they were promulgating sacred writ. They included provisions for amending the Constitution in full awareness that it--all of it--might be amended. In fact, the Bill of Rights, containing both the First and the Second Amendment, was itself the very first set of Amendments--added in 1791! For most of its existence, the amendment was interpreted NOT to provide an individual right to have firearms independent of service in a "well-regulated militia"-- that being changed after the NRA and the gun lobby made it a cause celebre .
     
    MeAgain likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice