T1B

Call to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I hope this picks up steam and the marchers from Saturday take Justice Stephens op-ed piece to heart. He called for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment completely.

Yes please. Throw everything you have at this. Hell I will donate to the cause. Why? Because it is doomed to fail but it will kick all other gun control talk to the curb. When it isn’t ratified it will make the 2nd Amendment all that harder to chip away at.

So where do I send my donation?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/o ... dment.html

Like I said---- we are the USA. Thank you.

Believe it or not, I actually see a point of agreement with the totally disgusting fraud who claims to be a pilot. That is, if during an off-year election when the GOP already has the House, Senate and White house, and a whole lot of those MAGA voters might otherwise stay home, well what could possibly rally them to get off their fat asses and vote than a sudden loud Crusade by a bunch of bratty kids threatening to take away their guns ?

Who paid for that huge rally of school-cutting kids? Not the kids, that's for sure--unless they were holding one of those car-washing efforts (with the bald chick both scissoring the ladies, and rimming the guys!). Don't you think there's something completely manipulative about this whole thing? And yes, that starts with triggering Mr Cruz with CIA mind control. Sound too bizarre to believe? Really?

John Paul Stevens is 97 years old (that's right, tubster, I went to school with his dad). That idea will go nowhere until after the baby boomers mostly die out. Once the millennials and generations X. Y and Z constitute the majority, that idea will gain some traction.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Believe it or not, I actually see a point of agreement with the totally disgusting fraud who claims to be a pilot. That is, if during an off-year election when the GOP already has the House, Senate and White house, and a whole lot of those MAGA voters might otherwise stay home, well what could possibly rally them to get off their fat asses and vote than a sudden loud Crusade by a bunch of bratty kids threatening to take away their guns ?

Who paid for that huge rally of school-cutting kids? Not the kids, that's for sure--unless they were holding one of those car-washing efforts (with the bald chick both scissoring the ladies, and rimming the guys!). Don't you think there's something completely manipulative about this whole thing? And yes, that starts with triggering Mr Cruz with CIA mind control. Sound too bizarre to believe? Really?

wut?

You seeing or hearing things again?

Actually, teenagers in and around 18 years old are more apt to support the 2A, not weaken it with anti-gun control legislation, despite the impression given by the MSM.

As for advancing the idea to debate the merits of the 2A and exposing it to the danger of being repealed, I’d more likely go along with that if it were tied in with a repeal of the 1A as well. Instead of a ala carte approach, I think a more blanket discussion of relieving us citizens with the burden of understanding why these onerous rights and freedoms were so rudely foisted upon us would be more beneficial.

No guns? Ok, but no talking either. And we certainly wouldn’t want women engaging in their civic duty to vote. Or the freedom to move about this enormous country of ours. However, allowing the ownership of people again would help lift the heavy civic responsibility of being a free, productive citizen from the shoulders of blacks.

In all seriousness, I have posited this question to the various gun controllers I’ve had discussions with when told that they have no desire to take away our guns: If we agreed to require (fill in the blank) in an effort to curb gun violence, would you in turn agree to never ever attempt to modify, add to, or change any gun law henceforth? The answer is always “No.”. “Why?” I ask. “Because someone will eventually invent or make another gun which gets around this rule (or something to that effect).”

The upshot is, while the gun controllers claim to not desire total gun control, and only wish to make small adjustments to present day laws, the reality is nothing short of complete restrictions on ownership, use, and modifications would appease them. The “common sense” gun restrictions are always just a method to get their foot in the door so that further restrictions can be made based on the ground gained from the previous argument.

I read an article recently which put forward the argument that pro 2A and gun controllers view the discussion in different ways. Pro 2A people see it as an issue of freedom, but the anti gunners see it as an issue of morality. It largely mirrors the abortion argument, but in reverse. Pro-life advocates see the abortion debate as a moral issue, but abortionists see it as a legal or freedom impinging topic. Because the two sides cannot agree on common ground to hold a discussion, the opinions remain largely static.

Rooster wrote:Actually, teenagers in and around 18 years old are more apt to support the 2A, not weaken it with anti-gun control legislation, despite the impression given by the MSM.

Well that would certainly explain why we're finding it more and more difficult to recruit new hunters. Then there's this:

http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-c ... poll-2018/

A week after the U.S. was rocked by its deadliest school shooting in five years, support for stricter gun control laws is at an all-time high among American voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

Those in favor of stricter gun legislation outnumber those opposed by a measure of more than two-to-one, according to the poll. Sixty-six percent of respondents said they would support more stringent laws, while just 31% said they would not. That’s the highest favorable percentage ever recorded by a Quinnipiac University National Poll, and a considerable increase from the 47% to 50% split measured in late 2015, according to an announcement from the school released Tuesday.

The split, however, was more even among gun owners, with 50% in favor and 44% not, according to the poll.

Other gun control-related questions also got highly favorable responses, the announcement says. Support for universal background checks, a mandatory waiting period for firearm purchases and an assault weapon ban came in at 97%, 83% and 67%, respectively. Sixty-seven percent of respondents also said it is currently too easy to buy a gun in the U.S., and three-quarters said Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence.

Idiot.

Goober McTuber wrote: according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

No need to read any further. Polls are worthless. This same polling group said Her would win handily. Then defended their polling methods that were obviously wrong.

Dinsdale wrote:Molon Labe'

Fuck yeah ....step over the pile of smoking brass to get mine you fucking liberal cocksuckers.

Arch Angel wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Believe it or not, I actually see a point of agreement with the totally disgusting fraud who claims to be a pilot. That is, if during an off-year election when the GOP already has the House, Senate and White house, and a whole lot of those MAGA voters might otherwise stay home, well what could possibly rally them to get off their fat asses and vote than a sudden loud Crusade by a bunch of bratty kids threatening to take away their guns ?

Who paid for that huge rally of school-cutting kids? Not the kids, that's for sure--unless they were holding one of those car-washing efforts (with the bald chick both scissoring the ladies, and rimming the guys!). Don't you think there's something completely manipulative about this whole thing? And yes, that starts with triggering Mr Cruz with CIA mind control. Sound too bizarre to believe? Really?

wut?

You seeing or hearing things again?

Pvt Archie, stand the fuck down..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t-L26MjwRo

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote: according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

No need to read any further. Polls are worthless. This same polling group said Her would win handily. Then defended their polling methods that were obviously wrong.

Yes, one poll got it wrong so they're all worthless.

And Her did win the popular vote.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

Arch Angel wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Believe it or not, I actually see a point of agreement with the totally disgusting fraud who claims to be a pilot. That is, if during an off-year election when the GOP already has the House, Senate and White house, and a whole lot of those MAGA voters might otherwise stay home, well what could possibly rally them to get off their fat asses and vote than a sudden loud Crusade by a bunch of bratty kids threatening to take away their guns ?

Who paid for that huge rally of school-cutting kids? Not the kids, that's for sure--unless they were holding one of those car-washing efforts (with the bald chick both scissoring the ladies, and rimming the guys!). Don't you think there's something completely manipulative about this whole thing? And yes, that starts with triggering Mr Cruz with CIA mind control. Sound too bizarre to believe? Really?

wut?

You seeing or hearing things again?

Pvt Archie, stand the fuck down..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t-L26MjwRo

Make me you senile, tinfoil hat wearing bitch.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote: according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

No need to read any further. Polls are worthless. This same polling group said Her would win handily. Then defended their polling methods that were obviously wrong.

Yes, one poll got it wrong so they're all worthless.

And Her did win the popular vote.

Polls are for lazy news people. Instead of reporting facts they can report on what you or your neighbors “feel.” Sort when watching the “news” I don’t care about your feelings.

And it wasn’t just one poll that said Her would win, there were many.

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Left Seater wrote:No need to read any further. Polls are worthless. This same polling group said Her would win handily. Then defended their polling methods that were obviously wrong.

Yes, one poll got it wrong so they're all worthless.

And Her did win the popular vote.

Polls are for lazy news people. Instead of reporting facts they can report on what you or your neighbors “feel.” Sort when watching the “news” I don’t care about your feelings.

And it wasn’t just one poll that said Her would win, there were many.

Was that based on the fact that polls said she would get more votes?

"Lazy news people" can hardly be expected to be able to assess the viewpoints of a hundred million people without polls. They do a serve a purpose, even when they don't necessarily serve yours.

What purpose is that? To try to prevent likely GOP or conservative voters from turning out to vote?

Polls are fodder for those who function at slightly above a social media level existence.

Left Seater wrote:What purpose is that? To try to prevent likely GOP or conservative voters from turning out to vote?

Polls are fodder for those who function at slightly above a social media level existence.

What total horseshit. Polls inform us about societal attitudes. But you believe they are some nefarious effort to suppress the GOP vote?

Goober McTuber wrote:

Left Seater wrote:What purpose is that? To try to prevent likely GOP or conservative voters from turning out to vote?

Polls are fodder for those who function at slightly above a social media level existence.

What total horseshit. Polls inform us about societal attitudes. But you believe they are some nefarious effort to suppress the GOP vote?

Notice I asked a question there, hence the question mark.

Further what attitudes are they really informing us about when they are wrong?

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Left Seater wrote:What purpose is that? To try to prevent likely GOP or conservative voters from turning out to vote?

Polls are fodder for those who function at slightly above a social media level existence.

What total horseshit. Polls inform us about societal attitudes. But you believe they are some nefarious effort to suppress the GOP vote?

Notice I asked a question there, hence the question mark.

Further what attitudes are they really informing us about when they are wrong?

And how often have they proved wrong? They do include a possible % of error. #stillflailing

And BTW, polls have been around forever. They have never once influenced me not to vote. If they can have such an effect on your retarded GOP brethren, that's probably a good thing.

And again, were all those 2016 polls wrong because they had Her getting more votes?

Goober McTuber wrote:And BTW, polls have been around forever. They have never once influenced me not to vote. If they can have such an effect on your retarded GOP brethren, that's probably a good thing.

And again, were all those 2016 polls wrong because they had Her getting more votes?

They were wrong, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:And BTW, polls have been around forever. They have never once influenced me not to vote. If they can have such an effect on your retarded GOP brethren, that's probably a good thing.

And again, were all those 2016 polls wrong because they had Her getting more votes?

They were wrong, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Well, except for the fact that she got more votes.

Keep moving the goal posts. The polls were saying they predicting the winner and next office holder. Hence the reason so many snowflakes melted on tv on election night and after.

Read an interesting article today that London has passed NYC in the number of murders per month. However, London's murders are primarily due to knife attacks. How is this possible? Libs have told us that guns are the problem, not knives.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lo ... spartanntp

Left Seater wrote:Keep moving the goal posts. The polls were saying they predicting the winner and next office holder.

I'm just curious. Did these polls cover the US as a whole, or were they done state by state? If they were state by state, that's a lot of moving parts, each with its own margin of error. If they covered the US as a whole, well, Her did get more votes that Him. Right?

Left Seater wrote:Read an interesting article today that London has passed NYC in the number of murders per month. However, London's murders are primarily due to knife attacks. How is this possible? Libs have told us that guns are the problem, not knives.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lo ... spartanntp

Anti-gun legeslation doesn't lessen the number of bad people, hence nothing really changes, except the old and weak having bigger targets on their backs.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Joe in PB wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Read an interesting article today that London has passed NYC in the number of murders per month. However, London's murders are primarily due to knife attacks. How is this possible? Libs have told us that guns are the problem, not knives.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lo ... spartanntp

Anti-gun legeslation doesn't lessen the number of bad people, hence nothing really changes, except the old and weak having bigger targets on their backs.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

NEW YORK – Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund today released new research showing that, controlling for population, states that require background checks for all handgun sales experienced 52 percent fewer mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 than states that do not require background checks for all handgun sales. The research employs the FBI’s widely-used definition of mass shooting in which four or more people are murdered with guns.

Among the findings included in Everytown’s latest mass shootings analysis:

Between January 2009 and July 2015 there were 133 mass shootings.

There were 37 mass shootings in states where background checks were required for all handgun sales and 96 mass shootings in states where background checks are not required.

Nearly 40 percent of the 133 incidents were perpetrated by assailants who were prohibited by federal law from possessing guns.

States that require background checks on all handgun sales experienced 63 percent fewer mass shootings committed by people prohibited from possessing firearms and 64 percent fewer domestic violence mass shootings.

“This is just the latest piece of evidence that Americans are safer from gun violence in states where a handgun buyer must pass a criminal background check before buying the firearm,” said Everytown for Gun Safety Research Director Ted Alcorn. “We already know that closing the loophole that allows guns to be sold without background checks online and at gun shows is essential for reducing gun violence. In addition to seeing fewer mass shootings, the states that have closed this loophole see 46 percent fewer women shot and killed by intimate partners and 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers killed with handguns.”

Previous Everytown research has shown that domestic violence plays an important role in the majority of mass shootings. Fifty-seven percent of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 were incidents in which the shooter killed a current or former partner or family member. More detailed information about Everytown’s research on background checks can be found at http://everytownresearch.org.

Eighteen states have closed the loophole that allows guns to be sold without background checks online and at gun shows and two states – Nevada and Maine – will vote on ballot initiatives to close this loophole in November 2016.

Left Seater wrote:Read an interesting article today that London has passed NYC in the number of murders per month. However, London's murders are primarily due to knife attacks. How is this possible? Libs have told us that guns are the problem, not knives.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lo ... spartanntp

London has endured a significant increase in knife crime, with 15 dying in February

17 died in one day. At one location. By a single assailant.

Wanna take another run at it, slappy?

That pretty much eliminates your AR-15 ban argument.

The bottom line is bad/sick people will find a way to kill if they want to.

I don't have issue with background checks, but they need to be updated to include people with mental disorders who are on medication. If you need medication for a mental disorder then you shouldn't be able to buy a firearm.

Another issue is lousy parents who aren't good mentors for their children. I doubt that issue will ever be addressed, along with child suicides, which takes a lot more children than those killed by the hand of others.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Joe in PB wrote:I don't have issue with background checks, but they need to be updated to include people with mental disorders who are on medication. If you need medication for a mental disorder then you shouldn't be able to buy a firearm.

What about people taking drugs that are known to cause depression?

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Joe in PB wrote:I don't have issue with background checks, but they need to be updated to include people with mental disorders who are on medication. If you need medication for a mental disorder then you shouldn't be able to buy a firearm.

What about people taking drugs that are known to cause depression?

They should also get a prescription for some uppers to counteract that.

I’m certain that there are some people who would have a problem with it, just as the latest trend in fashion is decrying “fat shaming.” In this case it’d be “mental health shaming,” but the angst would be the same: Various people suffering from mental health issues would feel degraded and put upon by the stigma of not being able to own or buy a gun.

It’s what we get for allowing Sports Illustrated to put fatties in swimsuits. Next up? Quadriplegic tranny dwarves who are triple amputees in bikinis for Screwy to jack off to.

You definitely deserve a good dose of “mental health shaming".

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Joe in PB wrote:I don't have issue with background checks, but they need to be updated to include people with mental disorders who are on medication. If you need medication for a mental disorder then you shouldn't be able to buy a firearm.

What about people taking drugs that are known to cause depression?

What about people taking illegal drugs ?

What about felons that have firearms or other dangerous weapons?

Something should be done about those.

Derron wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Joe in PB wrote:I don't have issue with background checks, but they need to be updated to include people with mental disorders who are on medication. If you need medication for a mental disorder then you shouldn't be able to buy a firearm.

What about people taking drugs that are known to cause depression?

What about people taking illegal drugs ?

What about felons that have firearms or other dangerous weapons?

Something should be done about those.

Don't you fall into both categories?