If the Democrats want to win seats next election...

[Liar]

Pretty sure more people own guns than human skulls, eastern european slasher movies, and medieval torture devices put together.

Gun ownership is far more mainstream than you realize or acknowledge.

Gun ownership is something else. I'm a gun owner. Well, rifle owner, does that count? I also own a power drill, a laptop and a bicycle. Doesn't make me an entusiast of either.

And just because something is common doesn't automatically make it not weird. Do you know how many Beliebers there are?

 

[richard_daily]

Gun ownership is something else. I'm a gun owner. Well, rifle owner, does that count? I also own a power drill, a laptop and a bicycle. Doesn't make me an entusiast of either.

And just because something is common doesn't automatically make it not weird. Do you know how many Beliebers there are?

I have to look up what a Belieber was...

I think that's weird, but I also think that people who like Twilight are weird too...

The difference is, the Democratic Party isn't actively trying to alienate those people. They are actively trying to alienate gun owners and gun enthusiasts.

My point is, we have our personal preferences, interests, and likes... A lot of people like guns. Even more people own guns, yourself included. Alienating a huge swath of voters in battleground states is a recipe for disaster. The Democratic Party would be smart to learn that.

 

[Liar]

I have to look up what a Belieber was...

I think that's weird, but I also think that people who like Twilight are weird too...

The difference is, the Democratic Party isn't actively trying to alienate those people. They are actively trying to alienate gun owners and gun enthusiasts.

My point is, we have our personal preferences, interests, and likes... A lot of people like guns. Even more people own guns, yourself included. Alienating a huge swath of voters in battleground states is a recipe for disaster. The Democratic Party would be smart to learn that.

Nah, I totes agree. Except maybe that Democrats are trying to restrict guns in any way that might more than milldly inconvenience most gun owners.

As a rifle owner and occasional hunter, I favor strict restrictions. Because I've seen those tools in the hands of too many, well, tools.

I just happen to also think gun enthusiasts are Brony levels of strange. And considering the subject matter of the tool, a bit on the goth side. But each to their own. I know tons of Norwegian blackmetalheads, so I'm not all that judgmental when it comes to morbidity.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I would prefer to live in a society where guns aren’t necessary for personal protection but I’m also pragmatic enough to know that is not going to happen anytime soon in the US. It’s unfortunate the we’re unable to have a national dialogue about the issue but politicians on both sides use it as a political football. Common sense is in the middle and not being represented.

 

[Hypoxia]

Since firearms can now be produced by 3D printers, any hope of firearm control is futile. Horse is out of barn, folks. And lasers as portable weapons are in the near future. Forget ever having a peaceful society. Our collective ass is grass.

The only shield: ubiquitous surveillance. Spycams everywhere, so nobody gets away with anything. Anything. Speeding, jaywalking, littering, vandalism, assault, murder, rape, arson, whatever -- whatever we do will be observed and recorded by some device and stored in some gov't database. No escape.

ObTopic: So yeah, Dums shouldn't push impossible dreams (which Gups have been doing for years). Gun control is impossible in USA. We're too fucked up. Better recognize that.

 

[richard_daily]

Nah, I totes agree. Except maybe that Democrats are trying to restrict guns in any way that might more than milldly inconvenience most gun owners.

As a rifle owner and occasional hunter, I favor strict restrictions. Because I've seen those tools in the hands of too many, well, tools.

I just happen to also think gun enthusiasts are Brony levels of strange. And considering the subject matter of the tool, a bit on the goth side. But each to their own. I know tons of Norwegian blackmetalheads, so I'm not all that judgmental when it comes to morbidity.

If your rifle has a potential capacity of more than 10 rounds, and is semi-automatic, there is a large group of Democrats that don't think you should have it. So Democrats are absolutely trying to restrict commonly used firearms, including just about all semi-auto handguns, rifles with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, and "tactical" guns of all flavors.

There are calls for a renewed federal assault weapons ban from many democrats, taxes on ammo, and "smart gun" regulations, as well as micro-imprinting, the last two being technology that doesn't exist, but that some Democrats want to push through anyways.

There are lots of tools that drive cars... Do you recommend strict restrictions there? Lots of tools drink... same question. Lots of tools post on the internet... same question.

Tools are going to be tools. The tools that the tools use doesn't mean you should further restrict the tools that the tools use.

As for the character of gun nuts/ gun owners, yeah a lot of them are pretty strange, probably myself included... But, I'm far more responsible with my firearms, than most people are with texting and driving or a plethora of other issues.

So I firmly disagree that Democrats only want to "mildly inconvenience" gun owners. Many democrats want to outlaw just about every firearm commonly available today. I could link you to dozens of examples of this if you'd like.

 

[richard_daily]

I would prefer to live in a society where guns aren’t necessary for personal protection but I’m also pragmatic enough to know that is not going to happen anytime soon in the US. It’s unfortunate the we’re unable to have a national dialogue about the issue but politicians on both sides use it as a political football. Common sense is in the middle and not being represented.

What would you consider "common sense"?

 

[Liar]

If your rifle has a potential capacity of more than 10 rounds, and is semi-automatic, there is a large group of Democrats that don't think you should have it. So Democrats are absolutely trying to restrict commonly used firearms, including just about all semi-auto handguns, rifles with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, and "tactical" guns of all flavors.

There are calls for a renewed federal assault weapons ban from many democrats, taxes on ammo, and "smart gun" regulations, as well as micro-imprinting, the last two being technology that doesn't exist, but that some Democrats want to push through anyways.

There are lots of tools that drive cars... Do you recommend strict restrictions there?

Yyyeees?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are a fuckton of strict restrictions regarding ownership and use of cars. I don't know the exact ones for the US, but here, you need a license which you can't get without passing several tests. And the license is only valid for a certain class of vehicle - I can't drive a heavy motorcycle or a bus. You need liability insurance. You need an eyesight exam. You need to be stone cold sober, a beer and you're grounded. Your car needs a visible licence plate and is registered in a government database. You and your passengers need to wear three point seatbelts. You need to have your car inspected by our DMV or a DMV approved licensee on a yearly basis. You need to switch tires once a year for winter conditions and back again in the spring. You need a standard set of safety equipment in the trunk. Also, there are all these pesky rules and signs everywhere about in which direction you can and can't propel your vehicle, at what velocity, and even in what proximity to other cars, and about a thosand other things. There are also restrictions on and features mandates for the sale of new cars, things like emission levels, crash cages, airbags, rear view mirrors and so on.

The only reason I can see why weapons should not be equally ridiculously regulated would be that you have a constitutional amendment that figuratively makes weapons a protected class of tool.

Lots of tools drink... same question. Lots of tools post on the internet... same question.

Tools are going to be tools. The tools that the tools use doesn't mean you should further restrict the tools that the tools use.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck....

As for the character of gun nuts/ gun owners, yeah a lot of them are pretty strange, probably myself included... But, I'm far more responsible with my firearms, than most people are with texting and driving or a plethora of other issues.

Ah yes, texting and driving. Forgot that. Yeah, that's also illegal.

So I firmly disagree that Democrats only want to "mildly inconvenience" gun owners. Many democrats want to outlaw just about every firearm commonly available today. I could link you to dozens of examples of this if you'd like.

The current restrictions on motor vehicles does not impede my ability as a responsible driver to fulfil my vehicular needs. There are manageable inconveniences. As there could be additional manageable inconveniences that would not unreasonably impede my ability to shoot deer in the woods.

You and I must have different views of what constitute acceptable inconvenience. It might have to do with emotional attachment to the topic. I admit that I'd might feel different if it was not about guns and cars, but sailboats, something I have more passionate opinions about.

 

[Yotta]

Well

That's a good idea.

But the biggest thing they could do to win is quit with the identity politics, especially the anti-white, anti-male identity politics.

It is the most anti-social, self destructive shit and it's become a dominant part of the (D) platform. The social justice democrats have alienated white people, especially white men to the extent white women chose "grab em by the pussy" over Hillary Clinton. And it just blows ardent democrat minds that so many white women didn't want to vote for the blatant persecution of their fathers, sons, brothers and friends for the sins of all white guys throughout history.

Average american? Try reality....she's been caught thinking Bush was still president, she needs to be put in a nursing home.

Identity politics is also known as Cultural Marxism. People just don't stop pushing for it if that's there M.O.

 

[irksomesauce]

If the Democrats want to win seats next election...

What's with the sudden turn to political consultation, dick?

Revenue stream from Getting Off Punching Submissive Socialist Bitches in the Mouth in Public drying up already?

 

[irksomesauce]

The only reason I can see why weapons should not be equally ridiculously regulated would be that you have a constitutional amendment that figuratively makes weapons a protected class of tool.

Actually, ignorant squirrel, AII specifically commands that the inalienable, natural right of every free individual to arm himself shall not be infringed by govt.

Those pesky inalienable rights - ABOVE THE PURVIEW OF GOVT - are what American govt was created to guarantee and protect before all else.

 

[Hypoxia]

The only reason I can see why weapons should not be equally ridiculously regulated would be that you have a constitutional amendment that figuratively makes weapons a protected class of tool.

The 2nd amendment was intended to permit ALL citizens, not merely selected classes (as in Britain then), to bear arms in defense of the nation, not merely for their personal defense. The latter is a deliberate misreading, now institutionalized and probably ineradicable. We're stuck with this gunpowder-addicted culture. We have the right to kill or be killed. Ouch.

 

[richard_daily]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are a fuckton of strict restrictions regarding ownership and use of cars. I don't know the exact ones for the US, but here, you need a license which you can't get without passing several tests. And the license is only valid for a certain class of vehicle - I can't drive a heavy motorcycle or a bus. You need liability insurance. You need an eyesight exam. You need to be stone cold sober, a beer and you're grounded. Your car needs a visible licence plate and is registered in a government database. You and your passengers need to wear three point seatbelts. You need to have your car inspected by our DMV or a DMV approved licensee on a yearly basis. You need to switch tires once a year for winter conditions and back again in the spring. You need a standard set of safety equipment in the trunk. Also, there are all these pesky rules and signs everywhere about in which direction you can and can't propel your vehicle, at what velocity, and even in what proximity to other cars, and about a thosand other things. There are also restrictions on and features mandates for the sale of new cars, things like emission levels, crash cages, airbags, rear view mirrors and so on.

There are tons of regulations on where you can carry and shoot guns. THere are also a plethora of federal mandates on what the gun can be made up of or consist of, or the country of origin, 933r compliance being one of the more ridiculous ones.

The type of car you can buy is not restricted in very many ways... is it?

Since you mention that you like boats, how about if the color of your boat, or the composition of the hull where brought into legal question? The length? The type of operation (motor boat would be outlawed, sailboats only)?

The only reason I can see why weapons should not be equally ridiculously regulated would be that you have a constitutional amendment that figuratively makes weapons a protected class of tool.

They ARE ridiculously regulated... in violation of the 2nd amendment in many cases.

The current restrictions on motor vehicles does not impede my ability as a responsible driver to fulfil my vehicular needs. There are manageable inconveniences. As there could be additional manageable inconveniences that would not unreasonably impede my ability to shoot deer in the woods.

The second amendment isn't about shooting deer in the woods.

if you could only have a single-speed vehicle, not capable of going more than 30 miles an hour, that's essentially the Democratic platform on guns currently. It's alienating a lot of people, myself included.

You and I must have different views of what constitute acceptable inconvenience. It might have to do with emotional attachment to the topic. I admit that I'd might feel different if it was not about guns and cars, but sailboats, something I have more passionate opinions about.

So what do you think about my comments on sailboats?

 

[richard_daily]

The 2nd amendment was intended to permit ALL citizens, not merely selected classes (as in Britain then), to bear arms in defense of the nation, not merely for their personal defense. The latter is a deliberate misreading, now institutionalized and probably ineradicable.

Correct.

We're stuck with this gunpowder-addicted culture. We have the right to kill or be killed. Ouch.

Incorrect.

The 2nd amendment doesn't promote murder or killing in any way, shape or form. It is one of the greatest checks on government.

 

[Liar]

Actually, ignorant squirrel, AII specifically commands that the inalienable, natural right of every free individual to arm himself shall not be infringed by govt.

Those pesky inalienable rights - ABOVE THE PURVIEW OF GOVT - are what American govt was created to guarantee and protect before all else.

This does in no way, shape or form contradict what I wrote.

 

[Liar]

The type of car you can buy is not restricted in very many ways... is it?

Where can I buy a rocket powered car? Or one that is 20 feet wide?

 

[Liar]

Since you mention that you like boats, how about if the color of your boat, or the composition of the hull where brought into legal question? The length? The type of operation (motor boat would be outlawed, sailboats only)?

So what do you think about my comments on sailboats?

The composition of the hull is in legal question already, for environmental and sea worthiness reasons.

I don't get where you're going with color. Are you saying that the official Democratic stance on guns is that they all must be purple or something? The equivalence of outllawing motorboats and only allow sailboats would be to outlaw guns and only allow slingshots.

...in my opinion.

 

[richard_daily]

The composition of the hull is in legal question already, for environmental and sea worthiness reasons.

I don't get where you're going with color. Are you saying that the official Democratic stance on guns is that they all must be purple or something? The equivalence of outllawing motorboats and only allow sailboats would be to outlaw guns and only allow slingshots.

...in my opinion.

The official Democratic platform on guns:

"To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets."

Any semi-auto with a capacity of over 10 rounds... especially those that are black polymer.

Also, there are no "loopholes". To claim otherwise is a farce.

Those are not "weapons of war", since no standing army goes to war with a semi-auto primary weapon, but that's what the Democrats are going to attempt to ban.


The motorboat vs. sailboat analogy is very similar to the call for banning all semi-auto vs. bolt action or single shot. That's the official plan the Democrats are calling for.

They will lose every election in the years to come, if they continue to take this stance against very commonly owned and used rifles and handguns.

Mark my words.

 

[Hypoxia]

Incorrect.

The 2nd amendment doesn't promote murder or killing in any way, shape or form. It is one of the greatest checks on government.

The 2nd does not promote murder. It also does not promote resistance against gov't -- rather, it's the ultimate defense OF gov't.. It absolutely does NOT provide any checks against gov't -- that's what the legal and political processes are for. Raising arms against gov't is insurrection, a crime -- in most lands it's High Treason.

Read the Federalist Papers. The 2nd lets you fight FOR the USA, not against it.

 

[nowisthetime]

How about Republicans stay out of worrying about what two ADULTS do in their bedroom and what a woman chooses to do with her damn body.

They're too busy worrying about their guns because they act like 'fraidy cats towards the spook who lives next door. Am I right?


Democrats need to chomp on gerrymandering, fight voter suppression, and focus on harvesting the same energy as 2008 bringing in traditional non-voters.

That's what they need to do.

 

[richard_daily]

How about Republicans stay out of worrying about what two ADULTS do in their bedroom and what a woman chooses to do with her damn body.

They're too busy worrying about their guns because they act like 'fraidy cats towards the spook who lives next door. Am I right?


Democrats need to chomp on gerrymandering, fight voter suppression, and focus on harvesting the same energy as 2008 bringing in traditional non-voters.

That's what they need to do.

The Republicans are mostly pieces of shit. I'm talking about a specific thing that the Democrats need to stop doing which alienates voters.

The Republicans aren't going to stop being assholes... The Democrats need to stop giving them ammunition.

 

[richard_daily]

The 2nd does not promote murder. It also does not promote resistance against gov't -- rather, it's the ultimate defense OF gov't.. It absolutely does NOT provide any checks against gov't -- that's what the legal and political processes are for. Raising arms against gov't is insurrection, a crime -- in most lands it's High Treason.

Read the Federalist Papers. The 2nd lets you fight FOR the USA, not against it.

The roots of the 2nd amendment come from Blackstone and English common law. It is clear that the right to resist oppression is one of the founding principals of the 2nd amendment.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

 

[water505]

Nah. A gun nut is someone who likes guns, talks about guns, and collects guns.

That picture is just showing a nut with a gun... and let's be honest, that sort of thing doesn't occur very often.

I know a ton of people who carry concealed every day... guns are not about what you think they're about, and they're not something to be scared of in the way that you're afraid of them.

How much must someone like guns and talk about them to be a gun nut?

You're doing both and are 2/3 of the way there.

How many guns are in a collection? One? Two?

Attack me, deflect, answer by asking another question, or ignore me for pointing out the obvious.

 

[water505]

The Republicans are mostly pieces of shit.

Excellent post!

 

[richard_daily]

How much must someone like guns and talk about them to be a gun nut?

You're doing both and are 2/3 of the way there.

How many guns are in a collection? One? Two?

Attack me, deflect, answer by asking another question, or ignore me for pointing out the obvious.

You're not a gun nut, just a regular nut.