Llevron Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Popeman38 said: It should not be more difficult to exercise a right than it is to enjoy a privilege. Driving is not a right, and using the car analogy is tired and lazy. If I say that voting should have the same hurdles as getting licensed to drive a car, I am called a racist vote suppressor trying to deny people a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It's funny, I'm too conservative for some on this board because I support voter ID. I'm labeled too liberal by some on this board for listing common sense gun control I support. It really is based on whatever pet project one identifies with. Who here is called you a racist vote suppressor? Or are you just exaggerating to make a point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 36 minutes ago, PF Chang said: It would be nice if people would stop pretending that the 2nd Amendment has always been interpreted as an individual right. It wasn't until 2001 federally (and 2008 for the Supreme Court). @Predicto explained the history of this after one of our previous mass shootings. Who knows which one? It's hard to keep track. Until then, only the collective right had been endorsed by the courts. Essentially what @stevemcqueen1 has been discussing in the thread recently. People debate this issue passionately while being too lazy to understand even the basic history of it. And clearly historically, even going back to pretty much right after the founding, there were restrictions on gun ownership. There were towns that really did limit the ability to carry a weapon (concealed or not), etc. Conflating the 2nd amendment and with the right to vote is laughable. If you look at something like the 1st Amendment, there are clear restrictions on it that nobody really complains about. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Llevron said: Who here is called you a racist vote suppressor? Or are you just exaggerating to make a point? I used the word if at the beginning of the statement for a reason. Go back and read the voter ID thread and tell me that people weren't called racists for supporting requiring an ID. 3 minutes ago, PeterMP said: And clearly historically, even going back to pretty much right after the founding, there were restrictions on gun ownership. There were towns that really did limit the ability to carry a weapon (concealed or not), etc. Conflating the 2nd amendment and with the right to vote is laughable. If you look at something like the 1st Amendment, there are clear restrictions on it that nobody really complains about. Wanna compare the restrictions on the 1st and the existing restrictions on the 2nd? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 39 minutes ago, PF Chang said: It would be nice if people would stop pretending that the 2nd Amendment has always been interpreted as an individual right. It wasn't until 2001 federally (and 2008 for the Supreme Court). @Predicto explained the history of this after one of our previous mass shootings. Who knows which one? It's hard to keep track. Until then, only the collective right had been endorsed by the courts. Essentially what @stevemcqueen1 has been discussing in the thread recently. People debate this issue passionately while being too lazy to understand even the basic history of it. Totally agree. All of these die hard 2nd Amenders and their insistence on open carry and owning military grade hardware don’t even realize just how much their opinion is shaped by the NRA gun lobby who’s job is to promote gun sales! They are hapless victims of corporate manipulation and government corruption. But for some reason they believe their thoughts are all their own and perfectly reasonable until theyvare shown the history. Then they just go into hiding and scream that there haven’t been 18 school shootings in 2018. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Popeman38 said: I used the word if at the beginning of the statement for a reason. Go back and read the voter ID thread and tell me that people weren't called racists for supporting requiring an ID. So no one actually called you that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: It should not be more difficult to exercise a right than it is to enjoy a privilege. Driving is not a right, and using the car analogy is tired and lazy. If I say that voting should have the same hurdles as getting licensed to drive a car, I am called a racist vote suppressor trying to deny people a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It's funny, I'm too conservative for some on this board because I support voter ID. I'm labeled too liberal by some on this board for listing common sense gun control I support. It really is based on whatever pet project one identifies with. The fact of the matter is that historically voter ID laws have been designed to limit voter turn out, especially among minorities. You can even look at there was the PA Republican bragging after they passed the law that they just guaranteed the state for McCain. I'm generally for voter ID too, but you also have to recognize there is a difference: 1. The right to vote is not equivalent to the right to won a gun. The right to own a gun in terms of the language actually used in the Constitution is more similar to the freedom of speech and to assemble, which there are all sorts of restrictions for. 2. There really isn't much evidence that voter ID is addressing a problem. Gun violence is clearly a problem. 3. There isn't a historical effort to disenfranchise people based on gun laws like there is with respect to laws related to the vote. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Llevron said: So no one actually called you that? The situation was hypothetical. Hence the use of the word if at the very beginning of the sentence. And this board would melt down if someone suggested making the right to vote as burdensome as getting a license to drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: Wanna compare the restrictions on the 1st and the existing restrictions on the 2nd? Sure! All sort of speech is disallowed or banned. So we can ban and disallow some guns right? There are all sorts of local (not even state) ordinances and hoops that you have to jump through in terms of getting permits to assemble. So local laws heavily regulating gun ownership and use should be legal, right? And I'll point out there is no comma in the 1st amendment unlike the 2nd (and again historically, the 2nd amendment has not been interpreted the way the 1st has). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: The situation was hypothetical. Hence the use of the word if at the very beginning of the sentence. And this board would melt down if someone suggested making the right to vote as burdensome as getting a license to drive. Soooo you made it up to try and prove a point. Lol got it. And im pretty sure we would just explain to you why its stupid. Kinda like 6 minutes ago, PeterMP said: The fact of the matter is that historically voter ID laws have been designed to limit voter turn out, especially among minorities. You can even look at there was the PA Republican bragging after they passed the law that they just guaranteed the state for McCain. I'm generally for voter ID too, but you also have to recognize there is a difference: 1. The right to vote is not equivalent to the right to won a gun. The right to own a gun in terms of the language actually used in the Constitution is more similar to the freedom of speech and to assemble, which there are all sorts of restrictions for. 2. There really isn't much evidence that voter ID is addressing a problem. Gun violence is clearly a problem. 3. There isn't a historical effort to disenfranchise people based on gun laws like there is with respect to laws related to the vote. Edited February 16, 2018 by Llevron 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, PeterMP said: Sure! All sort of speech is disallowed or banned. So we can ban and disallow some guns right? They already are There are all sorts of local (not even state) ordinances and hoops that you have to jump through in terms of getting permits to assemble. So local laws heavily regulating gun ownership and use should be legal, right? They already do And I'll point out there is no comma in the 1st amendment unlike the 2nd (and again historically, the 2nd amendment has not been interpreted the way the 1st has). SCOTUS has ruled. Yes, they changed their previous interpretations, as SCOTUS tends to do as things evolve There are TONS of gun control laws already on the books. The 2nd Amendment is already heavily regulated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Junior College on lockdown in Des Moines, Iowa shots reported fired. http://fox4kc.com/2018/02/16/an-active-shooter-at-highland-college/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, Llevron said: Soooo you made it up to try and prove a point. Lol got it. And im pretty sure we would just explain to you why its stupid. Kinda like A hypothetical statement is "made up" if you want to call it that. The responses in the voter ID thread were not, and racism was thrown around quite a bit. Quote I responded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 20 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: It should not be more difficult to exercise a right than it is to enjoy a privilege. Driving is not a right, and using the car analogy is tired and lazy. Easy. Take away the right to own a gun. Make it a privilege. Abolish the 2nd Amendment, an anachronism the meaning of which, in any case, has been ****ized by the NRA for its own ends. 20 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: If I say that voting should have the same hurdles as getting licensed to drive a car, I am called a racist vote suppressor trying to deny people a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It's funny, I'm too conservative for some on this board because I support voter ID. I'm labeled too liberal by some on this board for listing common sense gun control I support. Goodness me. Stay strong through your trials and tribulations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, HOF44 said: Junior College on lockdown in Des Moines, Iowa shots reported fired. http://fox4kc.com/2018/02/16/an-active-shooter-at-highland-college/ Des Moines, Washington. Outside Seattle. 1 minute ago, Dan T. said: Easy. Take away the right to own a gun. Make it a privilege. Abolish the 2nd Amendment, an anachronism the meaning of which, in any case, has been ****ized by the NRA for its own ends. Yes, you have said this numerous times in this and previous threads. We get it, you want to shred the Constitution as long as it fits your prerogative. Edited February 16, 2018 by Popeman38 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, HOF44 said: Junior College on lockdown in Des Moines, Iowa shots reported fired. http://fox4kc.com/2018/02/16/an-active-shooter-at-highland-college/ good to see nothing seems to be happening 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, twa said: good to see nothing seems to be happening Lets hope it stays that way! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Dan T. said: Goodness me. Stay strong through your trials and tribulations. Dont worry he made it up lol. 3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: I responded... Did you? Or did you make that up too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: Yes, you have said this numerous times in this and previous threads. We get it, you want to shred the Constitution as long as it fits your prerogative. Nope. Just that one amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, Llevron said: Dont worry he made it up lol. Did you? Or did you make that up too? And you complain about TWA? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, HOF44 said: Lets hope it stays that way! Especially since all those guns arrived to increase the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Restriction are necessary but I've yet to see a plan proposed that could work. "More gun control" in general is a meaningless statement. Waiting periods, wouldn't stop killers that are patiently planning. Eliminating AR-15s would simply result in a different weapon becoming the favorite. I'd like to see some comprehensive plans that actually stand a chance in denting gun violence, that an also survive a court challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: There are TONS of gun control laws already on the books. The 2nd Amendment is already heavily regulated. Okay, but there is nothing wrong with (some) banning guns, right? There are, but what many of us are saying there needs to be more. Local governments can completely prevent some organizations from assembling in the name of public safety. You would be okay if local governments banned some people from owning guns in the name of public safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, Dan T. said: Nope. Just that one amendment. There is a process in place to amend the Constitution. The bar is high. I would wish you luck, but I don't agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Popeman38 said: And you complain about TWA? But you make it so easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, Destino said: Restriction are necessary but I've yet to see a plan proposed that could work. More gun control is a meaningless statement. Waiting periods, wouldn't stop killers that are patiently planning either. I'd like to see some comprehensive plans that actually stand a chance in denting gun violence, that an also survive a court challenge. Mine would, and can pass legal muster....though it too will be insufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now