#BoycottNRA

#976
#976
NorthDallas40 said:
So this discussion has had an impact on me. It didn’t make me change my views at all. Rather it focused my understanding of my own views and expanded my own interpretation of constitutional rights.

And today, after considering everything in the media and discussion, I am going FARTHER RIGHT with my own stance going forward.

I will maintain membership in the NRA and answer a donation call if they send it out. I am thinking about joining GOA too.

And I will vigorously defend against legislation mandating an unconstitutional gun grab.

That is a summary of what all this means to me.
Click to expand...


Don't just stop at further right. Go all the way to Ultranationalist Reactionary. Thats about where you need to be as opposed to the opposition.
 
#977
#977
luthervol said:
It is illegal to have an abortion. Are you saying it should be illegal?

Also, should you be able to buy unlimited amount of a abortions?

Should you be allowed to have an abortion with no medical assistance?
Click to expand...

fyp

I wonder how this may change things... because some would argue that abortions are more dangerous than guns.
 
#978
#978
Rasputin_Vol said:
The criminal broke into my home or car. How does me reporting the theft and the govt having all of this information about how many weapons I own address the theft?
Click to expand...

So they can come arrest you when you don't report it.

Just think, you could then be another villain instead of victim.

Just wait, LG will be by shortly to tell you how you should be prosecuted as a criminal because you let a thief and murder steal your property.
 
#979
#979
SLICKYINC said:
Don't just stop at further right. Go all the way to Ultranationalist Reactionary. Thats about where you need to be as opposed to the opposition.
Click to expand...

I’ve always tried to wear the mantle of a “moderate”. If you look at my totality of views I’m more neo-liberal (NOT liberal. Reagan was a neo-liberal for example. )

Politically I’ve been mostly libertarian for quite a while.

But on gun control and 2a I’m gonna peg hard right going forward. I’ll meet extremism with extremism on this one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#980
#980
luthervol said:
What question have you asked that I did not answer?

So your stance is that people should be able to buy and sell whatever drugs they wish? And you think we have a drug problem now.
Click to expand...

Exactly... we still have a drug problem, in spite of all of these regulations. Just like we still had the Parkland killings in spite of all of the red flags and law enforcement agency activity.
 
#981
#981
BeecherVol said:
"Should" is irrelevant when they "can".

Your not changing the can as you think you are. You re just changing the how.
Click to expand...

If anyone could purchase prescription drugs in any amount and resale those drugs to anyone they wish. Do you think our drug "crisis" would be better, worse, or exactly the same?
 
#982
#982
Rasputin_Vol said:
Exactly... we still have a drug problem, in spite of all of these regulations. Just like we still had the Parkland killings in spite of all of the red flags and law enforcement agency activity.
Click to expand...

We will always have a drug problem. Undeniable and indisputable. The whole issue is how bad it will be.

To me that argument has never made any sense. That's like saying kids will always misbehave so why have any restrictions and punishments.
 
#983
#983
luthervol said:
This is my point.

Currently, Goober can legally purchase guns (unlimited amounts it seems) and resell those guns to people with no tracing. Those guns, after one or two or three sales, are being purchased by criminals. When the gun turns up in a crime, it can only be traced back to the original purchaser, Goober, who claims either "it was stolen and I never reported it" or "I sold it to some guy named Jim Bob but I don't know his last name or where he lives." My proposal would eliminate both of Goober's options. Goober would no longer be able to supply guns to the secondary market. By eliminating the Goobers we are reducing the number of guns purchased for the sole purpose of reselling on the secondary/black market.
Click to expand...

Your "Goober" scenario is an outright myth/bedtime story. The only ones doing large scale gun purchases and handing them over to criminals is the govt or someone with govt connections. Most "Goobers" I know don't cull many guns they buy.

You need to show some data that suggests that criminals are getting their weapons 2nd and 3rd hand from Goober.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#984
#984
SLICKYINC said:
Don't just stop at further right. Go all the way to Ultranationalist Reactionary. Thats about where you need to be as opposed to the opposition.
Click to expand...

I agree, keep on moving to the right and vote for a third party candidate next election. These Republicans don't deserve your vote!
 
#985
#985
luthervol said:
This is my point.

Currently, Goober can legally purchase guns (unlimited amounts it seems) and resell those guns to people with no tracing. Those guns, after one or two or three sales, are being purchased by criminals. When the gun turns up in a crime, it can only be traced back to the original purchaser, Goober, who claims either "it was stolen and I never reported it" or "I sold it to some guy named Jim Bob but I don't know his last name or where he lives." My proposal would eliminate both of Goober's options. Goober would no longer be able to supply guns to the secondary market. By eliminating the Goobers we are reducing the number of guns purchased for the sole purpose of reselling on the secondary/black market.
Click to expand...

So we re then waiting for individual crimes to happen to confiscate these guns sold with no paper trail so we can pop "Goober".

And if Goober does call in after it's stolen we get........dead people and no Goober to blame?
 
#986
#986
luthervol said:
If anyone could purchase prescription drugs in any amount and resale those drugs to anyone they wish. Do you think our drug "crisis" would be better, worse, or exactly the same?
Click to expand...

You might see an uptick. I'll give you that. But so what? As long as they are adults, I don't see your issue.

And I assume a slight uptick, but for the most part, those that want to do prescription drugs pretty much have the ability to get what they want as it is. Doctors are more than willing to hand out all the drugs you can ask for.
 
#988
#988
luthervol said:
If anyone could purchase prescription drugs in any amount and resale those drugs to anyone they wish. Do you think our drug "crisis" would be better, worse, or exactly the same?
Click to expand...

You need a market DA.

As you stated essentially we re always gonna have a drug problem. On the flip side you re always gonna have people that want to kill. Neither will change until you ban people.

If there were unlimited drugs to be obtained are you now in the market?
 
Last edited:
#990
#990
luthervol said:
It is illegal to resale prescription drugs. Are you saying it should not be illegal?

Also, should you be able to buy unlimited amounts of a prescription drug?

Should you be allowed to buy the drug with no prescription?
Click to expand...
Yes
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#991
#991
evillawyer said:
I agree, keep on moving to the right and vote for a third party candidate next election. These Republicans don't deserve your vote!
Click to expand...

I thought Gary Johnson was actually the best candidate and most qualified. I was resigned to the worst candidate in the modern era winning the presidency. I mean Hillary here. I was in CA on business the night of the election. It was glorious. 😬

You argue she wasn’t the worst, most unelectable candidate in the modern era? She couldn’t even beat a reality TV star dude...

Edit: btw keep doing drive by cracks like that and I’m gonna buy into GVs idea you’re an LG alt
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#993
#993
luthervol said:
We will always have a drug problem. Undeniable and indisputable. The whole issue is how bad it will be.

To me that argument has never made any sense. That's like saying kids will always misbehave so why have any restrictions and punishments.
Click to expand...

How far should we go to mitigate these problems is where the debate battleground is, luther. If we don't have a 50+ year track record of liberals gradually moving the goal posts every so often, we might be able to reach a reasonable compromise. The fear on this side of the argument now is "if we give up ground on this, the liberals will come back around after the next event and demand something else". You all are not honest negotiators. In 50 years, we went from a felon like Malcolm X being able to use a gun to protect himself after his time has been served to now we have handguns banned in some of our larger urban areas. We went from high school kids being able to bring hunting rifles to school in their trucks to now looking at making 21 years old the legal age to buy a rifle.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#994
#994
NorthDallas40 said:
I thought Gary Johnson was actually the best candidate and most qualified. I was resigned to the worst candidate in the modern era winning the presidency. I mean Hillary here. I was in CA on business the night of the election. It was glorious. 😬

You argue she wasn’t the worst, most unelectable candidate in the modern era? She couldn’t even beat a reality TV star dude...
Click to expand...

KsvcHWD.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#995
#995
hog88 said:
The colonists say high.
Click to expand...

We were specifically discussing middle East insurgents, not historical insurgents from US history.

And my point is that currently it is not reasonable to think that citizens, armed with what they can purchase at a gun store, are going to be able to overthrow a tyrannical US government armed with drones, advanced missile systems, fighter jets, etc.
 
#997
#997
evillawyer said:
We were specifically discussing middle East insurgents, not historical insurgents from US history.

And my point is that currently it is not reasonable to think that citizens, armed with what they can purchase at a gun store, are going to be able to overthrow a tyrannical US government armed with drones, advanced missile systems, fighter jets, etc.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we need to change the law so that they can then to get back to intent of the constitution

That’s the thing about law debates. The end stance may not be what you were fighting to get by opening up the debate!
 
#998
#998
evillawyer said:
We were specifically discussing middle East insurgents, not historical insurgents from US history.
Click to expand...

No, I used Middle East insurgents as a recent example of what our military has gone through for 2-3 decades in the Middle East. Imagine how difficult it would be with just 20 million gun owners (this country has a lot more than 20 million, btw).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top