Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree91Thanks
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 8th, 2017, 02:47 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Compromise? Let's see. How about a limit on magazine size? That's stupid, right?

Restrictions on gun ownership for diagnosed mentally unstable people? Who says who's mentally unstable? Nope.

Limitations on gun ownership for ex-fugitives? Same thing. What if the liberals identify me as a fugitive?

Background checks on gun sales at gun shows? .....Is nothing sacred?

Prohibitions on gun ownership by domestic abusers? More PC politics.

Sen. Collins bill to prohibit gun sales to people on terrorist watch lists? Collins may as well be a Democrat, right?

So, please list a compromise of which you could approve.
This post was too easy to dissect:

1) Yes, limiting the size of magazine you can use is stupid. AFTER the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that the Second Amendment was a Right that is NOT dependent upon that amendment, another court ruled this way:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (187

2) So, you want to allow mentally unstable people to run amok in society while under the influence of drugs known to have homicidal and suicidal side effects??? Hell, you should repeal DUI laws if that's the way you feel

3) If liberals identify you as a "fugitive," then you should be in prison if you have not paid your debt to society. Otherwise, you should be welcome back into society and your unalienable Rights respected... but, we all know they are not respected. We made some people second class citizens and, again, I'm asking where is the compromise????

4) There ARE background checks at gun shows. It's still unconstitutional as Hell, but like George Bush said, it's just a G.D. piece of paper. The SAME laws that apply to the brick and mortar store apply to the dealer at the gun shows

5) I argued against the idiotic policy of labeling people "domestic abusers." Today the whizzing contest you got into with your brother in 1985 is used to deny you your absolute Rights. BTW, in Georgia you can (and are) run through the system on the basis of anonymous telephone calls to the police alleging domestic abuse. The prosecutors can LIE to the jury, introduce hearsay and even threaten witnesses if the witnesses fail to corroborate the state's version (sic) of events.

Adding insult to injury, in Georgia if you file for divorce or are the defendant, the courts will not entertain your petition without a Mutual Restraining Order. Remember, under the Lautenberg Amendment, if you have a domestic restraining order against you (which is what the MRO is, you can never own a firearm.) The Mutual Restraining Order is NOT a Temporary Restraining Order... so in Georgia, all divorced people cannot legally own a firearm. The laws is not enforced for obvious reasons

6) It's too easy to end up on a terrorist watch list. I nearly lost my life when someone accused me of something related thereto and NO requirements were necessary to determine the truthfulness of the allegations (which, in the end were disproven, BTW)

7) I HAVE listed the compromise that I can live with. In all mass shootings, the shooters have been either political jihadists or people on SSRIs. You want to outlaw bump stocks? Let's talk about stricter regulation, oversight and policies the medical and mental health community should follow when prescribing SSRIs.

Can anyone show me the compromise the liberals have offered while dismantling the Second Amendment on the installment plan? A compromise is a settlement of differences by mutual concessions. When the left concedes that SSRIs and mass shooters have a link AND that we must regulate SSRIs as strictly as firearms, then and only then do you have a compromise.
Thanks from Sabcat
discollector is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 02:52 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Exactly! Though I'm wondering if the NRA leaves themselves open to more questions, such as: WHY NOT BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS these devices are used in? Who needs an AR-15? Can anyone come up with a good reason they need these kinds of weapons for self-defense? I hope the NRA's strategic retreat turns into a total collapse when their rhetoric and paid political hacks are put to the test.
Absolute Rights do NOT depend upon your requirement to prove a "need."

You don't "need" a car that will do double the speed limit. You don't "need" to buy 24 cans of beer at one time NOR even drink alcohol for that matter. And still more people are killed in DUI incidents than by firearms.

Since you can't turn back the clock on technology, yeah, I need the best protection that is available and constitutionally protected. Being a part of the unorganized militia, a wise man put it succinctly: The greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.
Thanks from guy39 and Sabcat
discollector is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 03:08 PM   #63
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 2,090
[QUOTE=imaginethat;1102523]Yep, the same was said after Obama was elected: They're coming for your guns.


Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Again, how did Obama come for your guns (my point before you changed it)?

As for Oregon, do you deny Oregon citizens' sovereignty over what happens within Oregon's borders? You do know that 2/3rds of all gun deaths are self-inflicted, right?
It it Obama or they? Which one is it?

Quote:
During his 2012 re-election campaign, Obama said he wanted to work toward reintroducing a federal assault weapons ban, because "weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets."
Congress blocked Obama's call for new gun laws after mass shootings | PolitiFact
Thanks from Sabcat
guy39 is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 03:19 PM   #64
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 19,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Why should automatic weapons be outlawed when they are the most protected under the Second Amendment as the founders intended?
Who says they are the "most protected?"
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 03:21 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 19,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Yep, the same was said after Obama was elected: They're coming for your guns.

And you guy, you're part of the problem if you can't see the elitism of the right, and its TLS.
Oh hell, the RW have been crying that since Bill Clinton.
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 03:33 PM   #66
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 19,991
Tell me RW conservatives, it seems you guys now want to advocate the ownership of fully automatic rifles, sub-machine guns, machine pistols, etc. on a Constitutional basis in spite of the fact they have been illegal to own w/o a special federal permit since the mid 1930's.
Is that correct?
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 04:18 PM   #67
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 698
Quote:
"you guys now want to advocate the ownership of fully automatic rifles, sub-machine guns, machine pistols, etc. on a Constitutional basis in spite of the fact they have been illegal to own w/o a special federal permit since the mid 1930's.
Is that correct?" Hw #66
Not exactly.

Conservatives support the Constitution, which includes our 2nd Amendment.
Non-conservatives wish to restrict the rights 2A confers, the proper approach is to first amend the 2nd Amendment, and then pass attendant legislation.
But for there to be a Constitutionally enumerated right which is then infringed without modifying the Constitution, bad idea. It violates Art.6 Sect.2.

Defend the Constitution! Or how can you expect it to protect you?!
Thanks from Sabcat and Jimgorn
titan is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 04:22 PM   #68
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 19,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
Not exactly.

Conservatives support the Constitution, which includes our 2nd Amendment.
Non-conservatives wish to restrict the rights 2A confers, the proper approach is to first amend the 2nd Amendment, and then pass attendant legislation.
But for there to be a Constitutionally enumerated right which is then infringed without modifying the Constitution, bad idea. It violates Art.6 Sect.2.

Defend the Constitution! Or how can you expect it to protect you?!
Then what, exactly? That was a yes or no question BTW.
Are you or are you not saying that the 2nd Amendment would include fully automatic firearms as being in the category of 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment?
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 04:28 PM   #69
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: in that one house at that location over there
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
link?????
https://www.britannica.com/event/McD...ity-of-Chicago

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1AA27U
guy39 is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 04:35 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 7,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Then what, exactly? That was a yes or no question BTW.
Are you or are you not saying that the 2nd Amendment would include fully automatic firearms as being in the category of 'arms" as the term is used in the 2nd Amendment?
Absolutely...."ARMS" is a military term....ARMS" are not used to hunt deer....Read the definition of the terms as used in 1787...
Jimgorn is offline  
Closed Thread

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
bumpstock, gambit, good, idea, nra, work



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A good idea, but ... ericthered World History 2 April 15th, 2016 01:15 PM
Not a good idea? roastpork Housing Market 3 October 29th, 2014 02:30 AM
A good idea? roastpork Education 0 April 9th, 2014 12:56 PM
Anybody have any idea how this might work... Dude111 Science and Technology 6 January 31st, 2010 01:49 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.