Gun control compromise

Crackpot nonsense. Another great example of why I want to be free of red states.

 

The standard interpretation of gun advocates that people should keep guns to overthrow tyrannical governments justifies murder to settle political conflicts does it not.?

 

Here is a compromise
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...interpretation-violates-1st-amendment.600550/

 

You will be alone the way things are going. I observed that you are unable to dispute the facts, so you lower the discourse to personal attacks. It explains why the socialist apple doesn't fall far from the fascist tree. Socialists know so much that isn't so that they have to attack the messenger who disputes their false narratives.

 

I only 'clock-in' on the IQ meter at ~131, but I'd very much like to know the name of any witch that had been invited to speak before a Mensa International meeting -- twice! Perhaps the witch has something interesting to say.... Do you recall who this witch was?

Back on topic, the best analysis I've heard so far of this "gun compromise" is that the Democrats caved after they realized that (as usual) their radical slant on how to 'fix' the problem would involve destroying the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- and that tactic is rejected by a fairly large majority of Americans who don't want to be put at the mercy of "criminals and crazies" with no credible means of self-defense....

Plus, November is looming, the Democrats have lost nearly all 'independent' voters, and even a lot of Loonie-tune Leftists have become completely disenchanted with Geriatric Joe and his Jamaican Voodoo Queen VP....

 

Don't remember the witch much, other than it seemed like a visit to la-la land where intelligent people shouldn't waste their time. Do remember she was supposed to be a "good witch", not an evil one.
There comes a point in dealing with ludicrous logic where you just say- no more. Nothing to be gained trying to get common sense to kick in, and that ends the negotiations.

If I could say one thing to Joe- it would be what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

 

You remind me of à Mensa meeting I went to years ago. We met at the back of à pub , about à dozen of us. I took the only free chair only to find that the woman next to me was convinced she was a witch.
After we established her credentials we spent à pleasant evening discussing other things.
NO ONE wants to remove guns only from the "goodies" side. How on earth can you think such a thing?

 

Well, said! And I daresay that as one with a Mensa-class IQ, you know exactly the unique meaning of the English word, "Shall", when it is used in official government documents and, the law!

 

Except that no law, however old, is exempt from being altered, amended or absorbed into otherclawsvto rendered it toothless..
That is and always has been the nature of à law. Otherwise I would be driving sheep across London Bridge and humans would still legally in chains.

 

My dear Pixie, surely you jest! Even from so far away as France, surely it is obvious to any serious observer that the entire American Democrat Party is infested with vigorous activists who think of little, night and day, but getting rid of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I keep reminding them (much to their irritation, no doubt) that all they have to do to accomplish this is to AMEND the Constitution so that American citizens are no longer allowed to defend themselves from 'criminals and crazies' with firearms and -- Voilà -- it is done! Surely to such a youthful, animated, intelligent, and 'progressive' band of enthusiasts, this should be relatively easy, n'est-ce pas...?

 

AHAHHAHAHA no it has never justified any murder and no you cannot be taken seriously for even a minute. The "keeping of weapons" is to make sure a tyrannical government does not take the rights of it's citizens. I shouldn't have to explain this...

 

I must say that you and others have fabricated à story which translate "gun control" into "one sided gun control". I fear it is indicative of the paranoïa I see in this issue.
What makes you think that any rewording of 2A is only for the good guys?
Fo your amendments habitually only apply to a portion of the population?
How can better background checks gun registration and changes in legal âge be aimed at just one part of the country,?
Changes to fundamental law applies to everyone!

 

This is a highly fanciful reason to keep guns.
In à democracy such as yours with many levels of checks ans balances, how can one government take away the rights of its citizens?
And if it wanted to do that they would need the support of the military...and your pop guns would be as corks bouncing off archery targets.
This justification is truly one of the more fanciful excuses for carrying around àn item that kills.
Tell you what. You only carry à gun when there is tangible proof of such an attempted coup. For the rest of the time, leave it in a safety deposit box.
You wont ever have to open that box.

 

You present a post hoc fallacy.

 

if you think protecting your family and yourself from armed criminals is "fanciful" then I feel awful for you and yours. Since my guns have saved my own life and the lives of leo's around me and civilians I'll keep mine, you clearly have no frame of reference aside from poor advice from a position of imaginary security.

 

QUESTION: what murders? and what do the 2nd supporters get wrong? they are just following the founding fathers gave the right in the 2nd, for americans to own---them most modern firearms in the world at that time! there was no difference in what a civilian could own as a firearm that what a soldier carried on a battle field at that time.

also the criminals at that time also had the same weapons as soldiers carried. so again, what murders? criminals & the mentally ill killed at that time as now. but back then as now. the honest citizen had the right to defend themselves with the same weapons.

 

Once again permit me to remind everyone that most of us do indeed support far more stringent background checks, and the increase in minimum age for firearms purchase to 21. Moreover, we should dramatically increase prison sentences for crimes committed with firearms!

 

^ Is he still the head of the org after stealing your money and spending it on paying his whore? Yes

Has the NRA endorsed all the gun control we currently have? Yes.

Then the NRA are all fat fudds who don't do ****.

QED.

The FPC wins cases and has a better modern record than the NRA does. NAGR likewise has a better record than the NRA does.
Yes they DO make the NRA look like the progressive liberals they are.

 

Unfortunately- however bad they are, they still stand head and shoulders above those who criticize them.
Nobody's perfect, but those who don't understand "Shall not be infringed" are obviously flawed to the core.

 

Well the largest number of statements in here assume that any attempt to curb the unrestrained possession and use of firearms of any kind is the last step before àn open pass to the bad guys, à government takeover of all your rights and the end of civilisation as you know it.
IOW hysterical response that destroys rational conversation. A lucky dip into the tub of NRA inspiréd propaganda and à stopover in the Disney Land of Captain America.
Nice to see some rational considération here.

 

Except: They don't understand shall not be infringed themselves, having agreed with LITERALLY every bit of gun control we currently have.

Hence why I call them all fat fudds who don't do ****, led by a man who LITERALLY stole over 30k from the organization to buy toys and playthings for his prostitute.
BOTH OF WHOM ARE STILL DOING IT. SHE'S STILL GOT A JOB AND IS GETTING A HIGH DOLLAR EXECUTIVES SALARY NOW FOR CHOOSING THE LITTLE GIFTS THEY SEND WITH THE MAGAZINE.

Wake up already.

 

My security is far from imaginary.
It is so secure that I don't have to worry about it.
Now THAT is freedom.

 

I'm told your people have an strong cultural connection and appreciation for artistic expression, so I have put together an art installation for you and others to view and hopefully learn something from.

Please note: I have used some images procured/made by others in a transformative use, though I have of course credited the original authors of each individual work that makes up this greater piece.

You wonder why we're unwilling to go any further? You wonder why a goodly portion of us are demanding we not only not go any further but go back quite a ways?

That's why.

 

Send us a video from one of the no go zones in your nation. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-zones-after-petrol-bomb-attack-idUSKCN12A1WS

 

Coming from an " artistic culture " I can confirm that none of those images remotely qualify as art.