• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Attacking the NRA Is Really Attacking Everyday Americans

LowDown said:
From the Washington Post, of all places:



Yep. And they vote, too.
Click to expand...

I'm an everyday American, and I don't feel attacked when someone criticizes the NRA. My husband is one of their 5 million members, and I doubt he gives a rat's ass when someone criticizes them. The First Amendment is kind of cool.

I'm a white mother who cries, and I didn't feel attacked when Dana Loesch talked about crying white mothers, either.
 
Moderate Right said:
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm. I posted a link to a picture on a map. Please try to keep up and not deflect. I also used words saying that 2/3's of the states have Republican governors and state legislatures and the Republicans have the presidency, the Senate, the House, and even the Supreme Court. It can't get much redder than that.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you weren't actually referring to the number of people in the country that are republican vs democrat. Got it.
 
Casper said:
The government? You seem to forget that the Government and it's military forces are made up of American Citizens, most of whom lean right. Think on that when you think the Government can turn tyrannical and force it's will on The People.
Click to expand...

Well then you got nothing to worry about, do you? That’s one less reason you need to be stockpiling such weapons.

First it was a toy, now it is too dangerous to be owned by civilians, many of which carried them for a living in the military and in LE, make up your mind, toy or weapon of war?
Click to expand...

Too much for civilian use, too little for a weapon of war. That’s why there’s absolutely no reason for it.

Then you have ignored every legitimate use that has been presented on this board time and time again, and that you only have one goal and are not actually here to discuss the issue. Enough said......
Click to expand...

The only legitimate reason I have heard here is that some people need them to fight off wild boars and mountain lions in their backyard. I suppose we can have special licenses for such people. Otherwise, target practice is not a legitimate reason. Home defense is not either.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, there are well established requirements for a street legal (or illegal) motor vehicle. Being necessary to get you from point A to B is not among them. There need to be well established requirements for a legal (or illegal) gun. How you feel about the "massacre potential" of a semi-auto rifle is not among them.
Click to expand...

Well that’s going to change soon.
 
ataraxia said:
Well then you got nothing to worry about, do you? That’s one less reason you need to be stockpiling such weapons.



Too much for civilian use, too little for a weapon of war. That’s why there’s absolutely no reason for it.



The only legitimate reason I have heard here is that some people need them to fight off wild boars and mountain lions in their backyard. I suppose we can have special licenses for such people. Otherwise, target practice is not a legitimate reason. Home defense is not either.
Click to expand...

Says You, and I disagree on every point.
 
TurtleDude said:
we who are gun owners and competitive shooters don't need to hide our motivations

you gun banners pretend its about saving lives but if that was true you'd be going after the felons who cause 80% or more of gun deaths
Click to expand...

We do that too. What gave you the idea we don’t?
 
ataraxia said:
Well that’s going to change soon.
Click to expand...

No it actually isn't, the Dems would have to have a large majority in Congress and a President in office for it to accomplish that, and that may eventually happen but it will not be that soon, and in the mean time people are buying them in record numbers.............
 
Casper said:
Says You, and I disagree on every point.
Click to expand...

That’s because you obviously would rather have young children getting massacred on a monthly basis as a sacrifice to your freedom to haul around crazy weapons for God knows what reason. This is all about you.

Not for long.
 
code1211 said:
JFK cut taxes to accelerate the economy. Just like Trump. Which Democrat today has strongly endorsed the tax cut?
Click to expand...

JFK cut it from the republican 90% tax rate for the top margin. Not all tax cuts are alike. So to presume he'd cut taxes now at the rates they are... is more than folly.

code1211 said:
JFK said that a rising tide lifts ALL boats. Same idea as Trump. Which Democrat today has strongly endorsed this idea?
Click to expand...

So what? That is a democratic saying. Jesse Jackson used to say it all the time when he was running for president. It's the policies that matter not platitudes.

code1211 said:
JFK, in his most famous quote exhorted personal responsibility by saying, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Click to expand...

he also said...

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”​

code1211 said:
He would be run out of the Democrat party today by the agents of division, envy and identity politics.
Click to expand...

No. Not even remotely true.

code1211 said:
What Democrat today is running on the principles defined by Kennedy?
Click to expand...

All of them per the quote I provided above.

code1211 said:
Regarding myself, I was raised in a Union Household in Minnesota during the Humphrey years and actually worked on the Humphrey Campaign locally hanging little thingys on front door knobs of homes in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...

That's nice. Political activity is good.

code1211 said:
I was also a Teamster as I worked my way through school. The First Republican I voted for for President was Reagan. The Last Democrat I voted for for President was Carter.
Click to expand...

The dems haven't changed. You have.

code1211 said:
I imagine there is a long list of things on which you hold false impressions based on error riddled assumptions.
Click to expand...

Speaking of error ridden assumptions... your' whole jfk schpiel is a great example.

code1211 said:
You may add to that the doubts about me ever having been a Democrat. I was a Democrat. Just like Reagan. Just like Trump.
Click to expand...

And again... The dems haven't changed. You have.
 
Casper said:
No it actually isn't, the Dems would have to have a large majority in Congress and a President in office for it to accomplish that, and that may eventually happen but it will not be that soon, and in the mean time people are buying them in record numbers.............
Click to expand...

We’ll see. Your views belong to an increasingly obsolete cowboy past. The new generation rising is going to look back on these crazy ideas and wonder how we ever had a civil functional society with such crazy weapons easily and freely available to every crazy person in the general public. The answer is: we didn’t.
 
code1211 said:
JFK cut taxes to accelerate the economy. Just like Trump. Which Democrat today has strongly endorsed the tax cut?

JFK said that a rising tide lifts ALL boats. Same idea as Trump. Which Democrat today has strongly endorsed this idea?

JFK, in his most famous quote exhorted personal responsibility by saying, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

He would be run out of the Democrat party today by the agents of division, envy and identity politics.

What Democrat today is running on the principles defined by Kennedy?

Regarding myself, I was raised in a Union Household in Minnesota during the Humphrey years and actually worked on the Humphrey Campaign locally hanging little thingys on front door knobs of homes in the neighborhood.

I was also a Teamster as I worked my way through school. The First Republican I voted for for President was Reagan. The Last Democrat I voted for for President was Carter.

I imagine there is a long list of things on which you hold false impressions based on error riddled assumptions.

You may add to that the doubts about me ever having been a Democrat. I was a Democrat. Just like Reagan. Just like Trump.
Click to expand...
———————-
”If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. “
- John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...
 
ataraxia said:
That’s because you obviously would rather have young children getting massacred on a monthly basis as a sacrifice to your freedom to haul around crazy weapons for God knows what reason. This is all about you.

Not for long.
Click to expand...

So all you have left are personal attacks, speaks volumes about You.
We are done here, I do not waste my time with those that cannot keep it adult.
Good Day I have to go and drop in at my Control Panel to make another addition to a list..................
 
ataraxia said:
We do that too. What gave you the idea we don’t?
Click to expand...

Facts - like the sentences actually now meted out for illegal gun possession. It is easy to find headlines for cherry picked long sentences given for a few cases but very hard to find average or median sentences (much less conviction rates) for illegal gun possession.

These cases should be slam dunks - did the accused illegally possess a gun? That is a simple yes/no question for a judge/jury to decide. What is not so simple is if those laws include (or require) proving (active?) gang membership which is much harder to prove. Many are reluctant to pass such laws (with any teeth - like mandatory minimum sentences) because the easily predictable result is far more minority arrests and convictions - a definite no no in liberal cities where most of the "gun crime" exists.

Across the country—from Louisiana to Iowa to Massachusetts—so-called “mandatory minimum” sentencing is increasingly out of favor. These are laws that require certain penalties for people convicted of specific drug or firearm offenses. A powerful bipartisan consensus has emerged around the idea that mandatory minimums are ineffective (and expensive) deterrents, as well as racially discriminatory and unlikely to reduce recidivism.
Click to expand...

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017...-spike-baltimore-grasps-at-a-gun-bill/540813/
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
We do that too. What gave you the idea we don’t?
Click to expand...

really? I haven't heard a single suggestion from the anti gun left that actually targets criminals rather than lawful gun owners.
 
TurtleDude said:
really? I haven't heard a single suggestion from the anti gun left that actually targets criminals rather than lawful gun owners.
Click to expand...

Here, I'll give you one: make any laws and increase any regulations that finally slow down the flow of guns and ammunition into the public.
 
TurtleDude said:
really? I haven't heard a single suggestion from the anti gun left that actually targets criminals rather than lawful gun owners.
Click to expand...

Huh? We don’t have laws against criminals? That’s news to me.
 
ataraxia said:
We’ll see. Your views belong to an increasingly obsolete cowboy past. The new generation rising is going to look back on these crazy ideas and wonder how we ever had a civil functional society with such crazy weapons easily and freely available to every crazy person in the general public. The answer is: we didn’t.
Click to expand...

where do you come up with this crap? that's a blatant lie
 
ataraxia said:
Huh? We don’t have laws against criminals? That’s news to me.
Click to expand...

what suggestions are you gun banners making that only target criminals. Its already illegal for criminals to possess firearms. Your goal of banning all sorts of guns only impacts lawful gun owners.
 
Cardinal said:
Here, I'll give you one: make any laws and increase any regulations that finally slow down the flow of guns and ammunition into the public.
Click to expand...

yeah we know you are upset how gun owners often vote and you want to push crap designed to harass honest gun owners. That's why your arguments are summarily rejected as complete nonsense because you don't even pretend your schemes have a crime control purpose
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Facts - like the sentences actually now meted out for illegal gun possession. It is easy to find headlines for cherry picked long sentences given for a few cases but very hard to find average or median sentences (much less conviction rates) for illegal gun possession.

These cases should be slam dunks - did the accused illegally possess a gun? That is a simple yes/no question for a judge/jury to decide. What is not so simple is if those laws include (or require) proving (active?) gang membership which is much harder to prove. Many are reluctant to pass such laws (with any teeth - like mandatory minimum sentences) because the easily predictable result is far more minority arrests and convictions - a definite no no in liberal cities where most of the "gun crime" exists.



https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017...-spike-baltimore-grasps-at-a-gun-bill/540813/
Click to expand...

the dems adopted gun control in the 1960s to pretend they were "doing something about violent crime" but they didn't want to do anything that would upset their black constituents-many of whom (often correctly) saw calls from the right for cracking down on violent crime to be anti black or at least having a disparate impact on blacks
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah we know you are upset how gun owners often vote and you want to push crap designed to harass honest gun owners. That's why your arguments are summarily rejected as complete nonsense because you don't even pretend your schemes have a crime control purpose
Click to expand...

So when you said, "I haven't heard a single suggestion from the anti gun left that actually targets criminals rather than lawful gun owners," you weren't really inviting a suggestion. Well, now you've heard a suggestion, and now when you claim in the future that you haven't heard a single suggestion you'll be lying.
 
Cardinal said:
So when you said, "I haven't heard a single suggestion from the anti gun left that actually targets criminals rather than lawful gun owners," you weren't really inviting a suggestion. Well, now you've heard a suggestion, and now when you claim in the future that you haven't heard a single suggestion you'll be lying.
Click to expand...

that isn't targeting criminals is it?
 
TurtleDude said:
the dems adopted gun control in the 1960s to pretend they were "doing something about violent crime" but they didn't want to do anything that would upset their black constituents-many of whom (often correctly) saw calls from the right for cracking down on violent crime to be anti black or at least having a disparate impact on blacks
Click to expand...

Yep, while it seems obvious to most that fighting "gun crime" should focus on removing those from society that actually commit "gun crime" (or other violent felonies) for as long as possible. It is simply insane to let those with multiple felony convictions have "just one more chance" (to claim more victims?) while saying how necessary it is to restrict the type of guns available to law abiding citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom