Another gun thread

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
See...that's the problem. We CANT issue rights that depend on what people need.

No one needs a 300 ft yacht. No one needs a space ship, no one needs..caviar, no one needs servants.

But what if one persons...needs, impinges on another's? Then what? She needs an abortion. He needs a place to live, they need enough food. We need for our child to not be shot. They need health care.

I figure we should prioritize need from the ground up but


I got no answers.
I dunno,

Maybe we could make this less complicated by invoking the "well regulated" part of 2A. It got us through more than 200 years. Only the last decade or so did our conservative court forget to read that first bit.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
lol 2 grams of shatter a day? Makes sense since you think people sell crack in vials lmao Not getting into grammar cuz I’m not that guy.
Yeah, I'm a bit ignorant about how crack is sold. That wasn't his point but I guess you aren't into comprehension when you read. Do please correct me if I'm wrong about that. It's very important that we cross all the tees and dot all the i's when being an asshole.
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Here it is again.

Have a discussion, a real discussion about the realities of guns and gun culture in the United states and we quickly arrive at urban vs rural, "cold dead fingers" and somehow, indictments of black people.

Essentially, that argument is "black people kill more black people than we kill black people so what's your problem".

"When I say “you” I really mean the far left liberals.....really far left. "

Well sir, that would be me. You have a problem with me.

"Gang culture "? OK, we should ignore white nationalists, the Aryan nation, proud bois and pretty much every organization that showed up on Jan 6th. Cause the problem is really with blm and the inner city black people who just can't seem to ever catch a break.

"infringing on the law abiding " here it is, "when they make guns illegal only the lawbreakers will carry". Not a single one of the hundreds (or thousands if you count my posts on revitalization, Facebook, quora and the like) of gun owners I have communicated with have ever agreed that they would surrender their weapons if those weapons were rendered illegal. That means that they are all perfectly willing to become other than law abiding.

It's interesting that we are on a site that advocates activities that remain, in much of the south, illegal, while claiming to be "law abiding".

Oh, and that dope really is "no different than heroin or cocaine" smoke concentrates? I detest the notion that ones drug use is somehow superior to another's.
No drug is superior to another (well acid is pretty super) but some are way more harmful if abused to the point of addiction. I for one know how quickly cocaine/heroin can ruin a life, I’ve seen it countless times.
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
I dunno,

Maybe we could make this less complicated by invoking the "well regulated" part of 2A. It got us through more than 200 years. Only the last decade or so did our conservative court forget to read that first bit.
Yes that’s an interesting point, seems that small part has been conveniently forgotten or left out of the conversation.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
No drug is superior to another (well acid is pretty super) but some are way more harmful if abused to the point of addiction. I for one know how quickly cocaine/heroin can ruin a life, I’ve seen it countless times.

"If abused to the point of addiction" apply that to any drug. And it does apply to pot as well.

I've seen that countless times as well.

My point applies to those who are willing to twist up four of five in a day casting aspersions on the dude putting a quarter a gram of meth in his face in in the same period.

" your drug is evil, mine is ok, that makes you a moral cripple and me ever so superior"
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I dunno,

Maybe we could make this less complicated by invoking the "well regulated" part of 2A. It got us through more than 200 years. Only the last decade or so did our conservative court forget to read that first bit.

Heller, and they say the right on the court isn't activist.
 

MAGpie81

Well-Known Member
It's true, but it's also good to be flexible. I have a couple christian friends that oppose gay marriage and they often start talking about how the definition of marriage is(was) a union between a man and a woman, as if the issue is because they're literarians frustrated with society's decline of an appreciation for semantics. In reality, it's just a proxy for something else that they're unhappy with.

I have my hangups too, like with possum, or expresso, or irregardless, because they're kind of words now and they only exist because others don't know they shouldn't. It used to drive me nuts, but then I realized there's a degree of narcissism in that frustration, "I know the thing, why don't all you idiots know the same thing, it must be because I'm so awesome!!!", so....fuck it, irregardless of what the expresso drinking possum thinks.
Geez, don’t be anti-semantic too!
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I dunno,

Maybe we could make this less complicated by invoking the "well regulated" part of 2A. It got us through more than 200 years. Only the last decade or so did our conservative court forget to read that first bit.

Imagine. The guys were drinking heavily after working on that second constitution thing. They really frowned on the whole idea of a standing army. (Look how well that has worked after all). But wait, said Thom, we gotta have SOME kind of protection. "Yeah, but we couldn't get the states to even chip in for George's guys shoes let alone buy muskets or rifles "

"OH, I know, hell, everyone already has a rifle or something, we can just get them to have a big pic Nick once a month, elect some volunteer leaders and they can March around a bit, it will be fun for them"

And of course most of those weapons and ammunition were kept in armories, because there were no fire departments, the towns were all made of dry wood and the powder had a habit of catching fire and burning down the village.

No one would have thought any more of guaranteeing gun rights than they did a right to keep and bear an ax.
 

MAGpie81

Well-Known Member
I don’t share your positive outlook on states’ rights. A lot of our institutional evils and bigotries survive because of that compartmentation, I believe. I consider the cost/benefit bottom line to be negative.
On the other hand… you have different fingers…

State rights are nice when you live in a state that believes in science and freedom to love
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Imagine. The guys were drinking heavily after working on that second constitution thing. They really frowned on the whole idea of a standing army. (Look how well that has worked after all). But wait, said Thom, we gotta have SOME kind of protection. "Yeah, but we couldn't get the states to even chip in for George's guys shoes let alone buy muskets or rifles "

"OH, I know, hell, everyone already has a rifle or something, we can just get them to have a big pic Nick once a month, elect some volunteer leaders and they can March around a bit, it will be fun for them"

And of course most of those weapons and ammunition were kept in armories, because there were no fire departments, the towns were all made of dry wood and the powder had a habit of catching fire and burning down the village.

No one would have thought any more of guaranteeing gun rights than they did a right to keep and bear an ax.
I imagine things like flying machines being able to bomb multiple states were not really something that they really considered at the time too. A well regulated militia makes a lot more sense if war today still relied on strictly guys carrying guns.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I dunno,

Maybe we could make this less complicated by invoking the "well regulated" part of 2A. It got us through more than 200 years. Only the last decade or so did our conservative court forget to read that first bit.

You took that out of context though. it says "well regulated militia". Meaning the hypocritical slave owning "fore fathers" didn't want a standing army and instead wanted people, the citizenry, to bear arms against tyrants if/when the time came. Tyrants both foreign and domestic.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
On the other hand… you have different fingers…

State rights are nice when you live in a state that believes in science and freedom to love
States having rights changes the meaning of what a right is.

States having rights, often means, a reduction of the rights of individuals. Then what people refer to as "rights from government" are actually revokable privileges coming from government which usurped the rights from individuals.

States rights are not nice and lead to unintended consequences, most of them negative.

On the other hand, you have word smithing, which is the tool of the tyrant.
 

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
Why do people carry?

A wise man once said, ”there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.”

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world
.
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Oh look, another new troll, preaching his incel NRA propaganda, welcome scumbag.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Wine snobs rarely complain that the pouring and drinking of merlot is somehow immoral or indicates a character flaw.

"Yeah, I smoke two grams of shatter a day but YOUR smoking that vial of crack means you steal from your grandma and can't possibly contain a single coherent thought in you addled brain pan."
you've already said you consider all drug use about the same...i've been around drug users for a long time, and i can tell you right now, some people are just pieces of shit, but some aren't, until you get them on meth, coke, heroin, pain pills, fentanyl...those things take over peoples lives, and they aren't at all like weed...there are people who smoke weed who are filthy lying pieces of shit who will steal from their grandmothers...but they would have been that way with or without weed, no one can do meth and not become a filthy piece of untrustable shit...and they probably don't have a coherent thought in their addled brains.
i've seen people with families and homes, vehicles in the driveway, money in the bank, start fucking with coke, or pills, or meth, and within 6 months they turn to shit, and lose the family, the home, the vehicles...the money in the bank was first to go....
never seen anyone lose everything over weed...and that's from over 40 years of personal observation
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Gotcha, but why is diversity automatically a liability? Why does a mixture of firearms and varied culture invariably lead to deadly violence?

What is this fear of other that we have bred into our culture?
because culture is what they're afraid of...the color of who they hate isn't irrelevant, but what they really hate is that those people are different, and they're afraid the new people will bring their new way of thinking and doing things and the new people might be better at something than they are, and then their whole platform built on the supremacy of white people falls the fuck apart...
 
Top