NRA issues threatening video to intimidate opponents

[hunarcy]

BTW, I'll change my view when someone can show the NRA killing someone or threatening to kill someone.

How about abetting school shootings? Does that count?

Since the NRA has never abetted a school shooting, it does not count at all.

the policies of the gun manufacturers lobby.... which is all the NRA is now, have absolutely abetted school shootings. and shills who stand in the way of things like tightened background checks and keeping guns away from felons, the mentally ill/dangerous and domestic abusers are also abetting school shootings.

I have suspected this for a while, and this post confirms it. You're an idiotic clown who can't be taken seriously. The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby. They represent their members who in the past did support background checks until it became obvious that background checks are abject failures due to government inefficency. Sadly, since you are not intelligent, you can't understand this and just vomit propaganda as if it was true, though it is not.

"The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."

Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.

 

[hunarcy]

OMG, you're an idiot. She calls names constantly like you do. You her pimp or a John?

^^^^^^^^^^^
troll who calls names constantly.



I was feeling irony deficient today.

The trolls know November is coming...

ya I wonder how they feel about losing a House seat in a district where Donald won by 20 points.

LOL, how does it feel to realize that the vote total was so close as to show the "wave" you were expecting is barely a ripple? And, to realize that the Democrat won because he vowed early that he would not support Ms. Pelosi to lead House Democrats and played down his connections to his national party. He echoed traditional Democratic themes about union rights and economic fairness, but took a more conservative position on the hot-button issue of guns. Certainly not a sign that the wave is coming.

actually, moron, it feels great. Donald the sociopath won the district by 20%. Romney by about 18%. it was so red that dems didn't even bother running people there.

so how does it feel, moron, that you lost a seat you should have held forever?

if you don't see that writing on the wall, you're even dumber than I thought. and that's pretty dumb.

but then again, you're a trumptard. so it's not like our expectations were high.

oops.

Wrong, troll. I don't support Trump, I oppose you Hillarybot trolls and your foolish goals. And, while you might want to appear to be intelligent and superior, you aren't. Fact is, you're one of the less clever trolls here. You claim that Donald is a sociopath but he beat your candidate fair and square. there is no "writing on the wall", but if Republicans lose the district, it doesn't disturb me. I'd love to see the district move Left, but I certainly don't support the "Democrat" version you represent.

 

[hunarcy]

OMG, you're an idiot. She calls names constantly like you do. You her pimp or a John?

^^^^^^^^^^^
troll who calls names constantly.



I was feeling irony deficient today.

The trolls know November is coming...

ya I wonder how they feel about losing a House seat in a district where Donald won by 20 points.

LOL, how does it feel to realize that the vote total was so close as to show the "wave" you were expecting is barely a ripple? And, to realize that the Democrat won because he vowed early that he would not support Ms. Pelosi to lead House Democrats and played down his connections to his national party. He echoed traditional Democratic themes about union rights and economic fairness, but took a more conservative position on the hot-button issue of guns. Certainly not a sign that the wave is coming.

Need we remind you trumpasor won here by 20 points?

Sad, but whatever gives you comfort.

 

[Taz]

How about abetting school shootings? Does that count?

Since the NRA has never abetted a school shooting, it does not count at all.

the policies of the gun manufacturers lobby.... which is all the NRA is now, have absolutely abetted school shootings. and shills who stand in the way of things like tightened background checks and keeping guns away from felons, the mentally ill/dangerous and domestic abusers are also abetting school shootings.

I have suspected this for a while, and this post confirms it. You're an idiotic clown who can't be taken seriously. The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby. They represent their members who in the past did support background checks until it became obvious that background checks are abject failures due to government inefficency. Sadly, since you are not intelligent, you can't understand this and just vomit propaganda as if it was true, though it is not.

"The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."

Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.

Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm still waiting on the crime they committed with a gun. You know where the NRA pulled a trigger. Do you even know who the NRA is? Nope. You think it is a building with 30 or so employees. Don't you?

You can abet a crime and be convicted for that, even if you're not the shooter. Now you know.

yes one can, give me a demonstration of where the NRA is abetting a crime?

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

 

[jillian]

Since the NRA has never abetted a school shooting, it does not count at all.

the policies of the gun manufacturers lobby.... which is all the NRA is now, have absolutely abetted school shootings. and shills who stand in the way of things like tightened background checks and keeping guns away from felons, the mentally ill/dangerous and domestic abusers are also abetting school shootings.

I have suspected this for a while, and this post confirms it. You're an idiotic clown who can't be taken seriously. The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby. They represent their members who in the past did support background checks until it became obvious that background checks are abject failures due to government inefficency. Sadly, since you are not intelligent, you can't understand this and just vomit propaganda as if it was true, though it is not.

"The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."

Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.

Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons.

^^^^^^^^^^

ding, ding, ding, ding.... we have a winner!

 

[Dragonlady]

You can abet a crime and be convicted for that, even if you're not the shooter. Now you know.

yes one can, give me a demonstration of where the NRA is abetting a crime?

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

yes one can, give me a demonstration of where the NRA is abetting a crime?

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

 

[Taz]

You can abet a crime and be convicted for that, even if you're not the shooter. Now you know.

yes one can, give me a demonstration of where the NRA is abetting a crime?

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights aren't being affected, you're over 21. Anyways, people under 21 already have all kinds of restrictions on them because we deem such people not mature enough (to drink, for example).

If certain products are be misused on a very deadly basis, society has an obligation to take said products out of circulation to protect the people, especially when children are involved.

 

[Taz]

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.

 

[Dragonlady]

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

You spout such airy fairy notions that come down to this simple fact: the trade off between unfettered gun ownership and the numbers of Americans being terrorized by mass shootings in the US, has reached a tipping point. Those who just want to go about their daily lives without fear, are speaking up.

The NRA has stopped working on behalf of its members and are acting fomenting sedition and violent overthrow of the government. See NRA TV.

The NRA is currently under active investigation by the FBI for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

yes one can, give me a demonstration of where the NRA is abetting a crime?

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights aren't being affected, you're over 21. Anyways, people under 21 already have all kinds of restrictions on them because we deem such people not mature enough (to drink, for example).

If certain products are be misused on a very deadly basis, society has an obligation to take said products out of circulation to protect the people, especially when children are involved.

The only thing is that drinking and gun ownership aren't legally in the same category. See, the bill of rights doesn't specifically enumerate a right to consume alcohol, and we certainly don't recognize alcohol as a right in this country. Otherwise dry counties would be illegal and prohibition would have been struck down by the supreme court rather than repealed legislatively.

The right to bear arms is a legally recognized right, as it's enumerated in our nation's structural legal documents. What you're talking about isn't just taking a product out of circulation, what you're talking about is removing a constitutionally enumerated right from legal adults until a certain age, and thus you still haven't answered where that line is to be drawn.

Where do you draw the line between -RIGHTS- (not products) and safety?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.

That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?

If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.

It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.

 

[Taz]

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights aren't being affected, you're over 21. Anyways, people under 21 already have all kinds of restrictions on them because we deem such people not mature enough (to drink, for example).

If certain products are be misused on a very deadly basis, society has an obligation to take said products out of circulation to protect the people, especially when children are involved.

The only thing is that drinking and gun ownership aren't legally in the same category. See, the bill of rights doesn't specifically enumerate a right to consume alcohol, and we certainly don't recognize alcohol as a right in this country. Otherwise dry counties would be illegal and prohibition would have been struck down by the supreme court rather than repealed legislatively.

The right to bear arms is a legally recognized right, as it's enumerated in our nation's structural legal documents. What you're talking about isn't just taking a product out of circulation, what you're talking about is removing a constitutionally enumerated right from legal adults until a certain age, and thus you still haven't answered where that line is to be drawn.

Where do you draw the line between -RIGHTS- (not products) and safety?

No, the actual right to bear arms isn't being taken away, and it isn't even being touched. You already can't own a whole range of arms, like live mines, AA missiles, armed tanks.... And children aren't allowed to own any guns whatsoever, and the 2nd doesn't have an age restricted. So there are plenty of ways the 2nd is already limited.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

You spout such airy fairy notions that come down to this simple fact: the trade off between unfettered gun ownership and the numbers of Americans being terrorized by mass shootings in the US, has reached a tipping point. Those who just want to go about their daily lives without fear, are speaking up.

The NRA has stopped working on behalf of its members and are acting fomenting sedition and violent overthrow of the government. See NRA TV.

The NRA is currently under active investigation by the FBI for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions.

I love it. You tell me I'm spouting airy fairy notions about principle, and then IMMEDIATELY justify your position by pointing out that Americans are scared and want action.

Yes, the fear of people who watch sensational news stories and get all afraid without ever actually looking into the numbers is TOTALLY a more solid basis for reason than the actual principles involved. Holy SHIT!

And no, I'm not going to go search through NRATV to find proof for you. If you've got a clip to back up your accusations, post it, otherwise, don't expect me to take your word at face value when you just essentially told me that fear should trump principle.

 

[Taz]

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.

That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?

If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.

It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.

Although you do have free speech, it is not absolute. Same thing with the 2nd, you have a right to bear arms, but not any arms you want, like a nuke.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights aren't being affected, you're over 21. Anyways, people under 21 already have all kinds of restrictions on them because we deem such people not mature enough (to drink, for example).

If certain products are be misused on a very deadly basis, society has an obligation to take said products out of circulation to protect the people, especially when children are involved.

The only thing is that drinking and gun ownership aren't legally in the same category. See, the bill of rights doesn't specifically enumerate a right to consume alcohol, and we certainly don't recognize alcohol as a right in this country. Otherwise dry counties would be illegal and prohibition would have been struck down by the supreme court rather than repealed legislatively.

The right to bear arms is a legally recognized right, as it's enumerated in our nation's structural legal documents. What you're talking about isn't just taking a product out of circulation, what you're talking about is removing a constitutionally enumerated right from legal adults until a certain age, and thus you still haven't answered where that line is to be drawn.

Where do you draw the line between -RIGHTS- (not products) and safety?

No, the actual right to bear arms isn't being taken away, and it isn't even being touched. You already can't own a whole range of arms, like live mines, AA missiles, armed tanks.... And children aren't allowed to own any guns whatsoever, and the 2nd doesn't have an age restricted. So there are plenty of ways the 2nd is already limited.

IT's being infringed, which is a direct contradiction of the terms of the 2nd Amendment, which, when considering that pesky little legal precedent factor, is as good as a repeal.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.

That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?

If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.

It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.

Although you do have free speech, it is not absolute. Same thing with the 2nd, you have a right to bear arms, but not any arms you want, like a nuke.

I'm not trying to imply that it's absolute. However, allowing people to speak in public risks that they MISUSE the freedom of speech and, for instance, call a crowd to violence once they've got a platform. If we didn't have that freedom, they wouldn't have such an easy time securing the platform in the first place.

 

[jillian]

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.

That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?

If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.

It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.

we have a common law system of law. our caselaw IS based on precedent. And precedents only get overturned with good cause. (you know, like when Brown v Bd of Ed superseded Plessy v Ferguson). you just don't get up and say, meh...I don't agree with that decision. I don't agree with a lot of decisions (see, Heller, Citizen's United). And while those are garbage decisions, they are the law. and no lower court is going to say, oh, I don't like that and not enforce it. And if they do, it will be overturned when it goes up. At least until normal judges are back on the court.

it might be convenient for you to ignore our legal system. But how 'bout you leave the law to people who actually understand our system of jurisprudence.

 

[jillian]

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.

That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?

If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.

It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.

Although you do have free speech, it is not absolute. Same thing with the 2nd, you have a right to bear arms, but not any arms you want, like a nuke.

I'm not trying to imply that it's absolute. However, allowing people to speak in public risks that they MISUSE the freedom of speech and, for instance, call a crowd to violence once they've got a platform. If we didn't have that freedom, they wouldn't have such an easy time securing the platform in the first place.

there are time place and manner restrictions on speech. no right is absolute.which is why the gun nuts don't know what the hell they're talking about.