Gun control debate (merged)

#16,304
#16,304
Pepe_Silvia said:
Constitutional amendment would ban future firearms restrictions in the state
Click to expand...
This legislation would add two following sentences. “The Legislature shall enact no law that limits the right of a person to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories in any manner that would create a greater burden than that in federal law,” the amendment states. “Any federal law that infringes upon rights guaranteed in this New Hampshire Constitution shall be unenforceable by New Hampshire law enforcement.”

5A622966-17EC-4E02-BDC3-35F49183131D.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: BennesseeVols, Rasputin_Vol, StarRaider and 5 others
#16,305
#16,305
NorthDallas40 said:
This legislation would add two following sentences. “The Legislature shall enact no law that limits the right of a person to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories in any manner that would create a greater burden than that in federal law,” the amendment states. “Any federal law that infringes upon rights guaranteed in this New Hampshire Constitution shall be unenforceable by New Hampshire law enforcement.”

View attachment 350903
Click to expand...

NH is a pretty nice state. I could see myself living there if it didn't get so cold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and StarRaider
#16,307
#16,307
Pepe_Silvia said:
NH is a pretty nice state. I could see myself living there if it didn't get so cold.
Click to expand...
Yeah it does fall a bit short on intent though. It still recognizes the Feds as being able to pass their own BS unconstitutional over reach, the bill just states the NH LEOs won’t play their game. I’d rather see the stronger approach by other states saying “we don’t recognize your over reach, Feds, and if we catch you trying to oppress our citizens we will throw your asses in state jail”. Thus it got the Redford gif and not the Nicholson gif.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BennesseeVols, GreyWolf1129 and Pepe_Silvia
#16,309
#16,309
Here is something I haven’t ever been able to reconcile, maybe some of you can shed some light.

How can a person simultaneously be a 2A absolutist and anti-union? The reasoning that most give to preserve the 2A at all costs also rings true for preserving collective bargaining rights... common people having the ability to fend off tyranny. The two even cross paths historically, with the first labor organizers exercising their 2A rights to fight off being trampled by big business, even shedding blood in exchanges with strike breakers. Both have also had their share of negative press and rocky history.

To me these ideas are fundamentally married, but in today’s world conservatives don’t recognize them the same way. It can’t be free market ideals because collective bargaining is part of a free market, just people exercising their ability to maximize income. So what is it specifically that makes a lot of conservatives all-in on 2A and disgusted by unions?
 
#16,310
#16,310
OHvol40 said:
Here is something I haven’t ever been able to reconcile, maybe some of you can shed some light.

How can a person simultaneously be a 2A absolutist and anti-union? The reasoning that most give to preserve the 2A at all costs also rings true for preserving collective bargaining rights... common people having the ability to fend off tyranny. The two even cross paths historically, with the first labor organizers exercising their 2A rights to fight off being trampled by big business, even shedding blood in exchanges with strike breakers. Both have also had their share of negative press and rocky history.

To me these ideas are fundamentally married, but in today’s world conservatives don’t recognize them the same way. It can’t be free market ideals because collective bargaining is part of a free market, just people exercising their ability to maximize income. So what is it specifically that makes a lot of conservatives all-in on 2A and disgusted by unions?
Click to expand...
Has anyone on here ever said the the 2A should remain intact but unions should be outlawed?
 
#16,312
#16,312
OHvol40 said:
I mean, outlawing unions isn’t an official Republican Party platform, but weakening them has been common practice for decades now.
Click to expand...
Have they presented any laws that attempt limit or eliminate unions?
HR127 is a direct assault on the 2A. Just the most recent of many.
I fail to see the connection you’re attempting to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, BennesseeVols, Rasputin_Vol and 2 others
#16,313
#16,313
OHvol40 said:
Here is something I haven’t ever been able to reconcile, maybe some of you can shed some light.

How can a person simultaneously be a 2A absolutist and anti-union? The reasoning that most give to preserve the 2A at all costs also rings true for preserving collective bargaining rights... common people having the ability to fend off tyranny. The two even cross paths historically, with the first labor organizers exercising their 2A rights to fight off being trampled by big business, even shedding blood in exchanges with strike breakers. Both have also had their share of negative press and rocky history.

To me these ideas are fundamentally married, but in today’s world conservatives don’t recognize them the same way. It can’t be free market ideals because collective bargaining is part of a free market, just people exercising their ability to maximize income. So what is it specifically that makes a lot of conservatives all-in on 2A and disgusted by unions?
Click to expand...
It’s almost like being pro lockdown and then letting a crap ton of refugees pour through the southern border. It’s crazy isn’t it. 🤪
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol, StarRaider and Rickyvol77
#16,314
#16,314
Orangeslice13 said:
Have they presented any laws that attempt limit or eliminate unions?
HR127 is a direct assault on the 2A. Just the most recent of many.
I fail to see the connection you’re attempting to make.
Click to expand...
Right to work laws and prevailing wage repeal laws are recent examples. Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio have recently had numerous measures passed designed to bust unions. Gov Walker’s ACT 10 in Wisconsin also comes to mind.

I pointed out the connection. If you prefer to play dumb, then play dumb.
 
#16,315
#16,315
OHvol40 said:
Right to work laws and prevailing wage repeal laws are recent examples. Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio have recently had numerous measures passed designed to bust unions. Gov Walker’s ACT 10 in Wisconsin also comes to mind.

I pointed out the connection. If you prefer to play dumb, then play dumb.
Click to expand...
You’re just seeing things that are not connected.
If you prefer to be dumb be dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 615vols, Rasputin_Vol, Carl Pickens and 4 others
#16,316
#16,316
Jxn Vol said:
It’s almost like being pro lockdown and then letting a crap ton of refugees pour through the southern border. It’s crazy isn’t it. 🤪
Click to expand...
I’m looking for a real discussion. If there is none to be had here, whataboutisms aren’t useful
 
#16,319
#16,319
OHvol40 said:
Here is something I haven’t ever been able to reconcile, maybe some of you can shed some light.

How can a person simultaneously be a 2A absolutist and anti-union? The reasoning that most give to preserve the 2A at all costs also rings true for preserving collective bargaining rights... common people having the ability to fend off tyranny. The two even cross paths historically, with the first labor organizers exercising their 2A rights to fight off being trampled by big business, even shedding blood in exchanges with strike breakers. Both have also had their share of negative press and rocky history.

To me these ideas are fundamentally married, but in today’s world conservatives don’t recognize them the same way. It can’t be free market ideals because collective bargaining is part of a free market, just people exercising their ability to maximize income. So what is it specifically that makes a lot of conservatives all-in on 2A and disgusted by unions?
Click to expand...
Fending off tyranny from government is required because one cannot escape their government. Fending off tyranny from an employer can be as simple as gaining employ somewhere else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, BennesseeVols, Rasputin_Vol and 9 others
#16,321
#16,321
McDad said:
Fending off tyranny from government is required because one cannot escape their government. Fending off tyranny from an employer can be as simple as gaining employ somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Come on, don’t be naive. First off, “employers” own the government and have for a while, so distinguishing between the two like they have nothing to do with one another is disingenuous.

Second, I hope you know the history of big business and how it has controlled/ruled the country via monopolies for decades at a time over the centuries creating the necessity for organized labor from Iowa to West Virginia to Detroit. If you don’t know, I can fill you in.
 
#16,324
#16,324
OHvol40 said:
Come on, don’t be naive. First off, “employers” own the government and have for a while, so distinguishing between the two like they have nothing to do with one another is disingenuous.

Second, I hope you know the history of big business and how it has controlled/ruled the country via monopolies for decades at a time over the centuries creating the necessity for organized labor from Iowa to West Virginia to Detroit. If you don’t know, I can fill you in.
Click to expand...
You claimed you wanted legit convo. You do not.

For you to be legit, you will need to provide conclusive evidence employers own the government instead of claiming it as accepted knowledge.

Secondly you will need to prove collusion of all employers both large and small and how that collusion is de facto monopolistic employment availability.

Your claim to want real discussion is garbage. Your attempt to connect 2A and unionization is garbage. Your reply to my post is garbage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, dovervolz, SlipKidVol and 7 others
#16,325
#16,325
McDad said:
You claimed you wanted legit convo. You do not.

For you to be legit, you will need to provide conclusive evidence employers own the government instead of claiming it as accepted knowledge.

Secondly you will need to prove collusion of all employers both large and small and how that collusion is de facto monopolistic employment availability.

Your claim to want real discussion is garbage. Your attempt to connect 2A and unionization is garbage. Your reply to my post is garbage.
Click to expand...
I just said the same thing in fewer letters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, davethevol, StarRaider and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top