NRA issues threatening video to intimidate opponents

[xyz]

Then you agree that the government has the right to regulate gun sales, as well as ban certain classes of weapons from being sold.

Strawman.

Nowhere did I say that. You and Taz are so stupid this is getting boring

If you don't agree with that, then you think ordinary citizens should be allowed to own cannons. There are no buts.

They ARE allowed to own cannons. Again, why did you not know this before opening your mouth? Why are we supposed to be responsible for your ignorant assumptions?

Deactivated cannons. Big deal. I bought a non-functioning blunderbuss replica, did not even get I.D.ed.

Wrong. It's perfectly legal to own a fully-functioning cannon. Second erroneous bullshit assumption on your part. Again, find out what you're babbling about before you open your piehole.

Only in certain states though. Thank you for your intelligent comments and well researched insightful post, with clear footnotes.

 

[kaz]

That doesn't contradict what she said.

There are Arab terrorists who want to buy a nuke. So?

Don't Arab-Americans have a 2nd Amendment right to own one?

Multiple people including me keep asking you how they get nuclear material without affecting the rights of other citizens and you keep running and hiding

Why should a suitcase nuke affect other people?

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

And how are you going to get it? If you can mine it in your property and your property is big enough, that's fine. Go to it

 

[Cecilie1200]

Strawman.

Nowhere did I say that. You and Taz are so stupid this is getting boring

If you don't agree with that, then you think ordinary citizens should be allowed to own cannons. There are no buts.

They ARE allowed to own cannons. Again, why did you not know this before opening your mouth? Why are we supposed to be responsible for your ignorant assumptions?

Deactivated cannons. Big deal. I bought a non-functioning blunderbuss replica, did not even get I.D.ed.

Wrong. It's perfectly legal to own a fully-functioning cannon. Second erroneous bullshit assumption on your part. Again, find out what you're babbling about before you open your piehole.

Only in certain states though. Thank you for your intelligent comments and well researched insightful post, with clear footnotes.

What in the hell makes you think I'M obligated to provide you with the research you should have done before opening your mouth?

 

[kaz]

Strawman.

Nowhere did I say that. You and Taz are so stupid this is getting boring

If you don't agree with that, then you think ordinary citizens should be allowed to own cannons. There are no buts.

They ARE allowed to own cannons. Again, why did you not know this before opening your mouth? Why are we supposed to be responsible for your ignorant assumptions?

Deactivated cannons. Big deal. I bought a non-functioning blunderbuss replica, did not even get I.D.ed.

Wrong. It's perfectly legal to own a fully-functioning cannon. Second erroneous bullshit assumption on your part. Again, find out what you're babbling about before you open your piehole.

Only in certain states though. Thank you for your intelligent comments and well researched insightful post, with clear footnotes.

You mean like you typically provide?

 

[kaz]

That is absolutely absurd.

The idiot thinks he's making a brilliantly clever argument about the Second Amendment by babbling about nuclear weapons. Are you really surprised that everything out of his mouth is absurd?

No, not at all.

Ok, forget nukes for a sec, but I'm sure that there are some Arab-Americans who would LOVE to buy some AA missiles, or some cluster bombs. Why can't we buy those?

Here's a wee clue, bub: terrorists will get bombs on the black market or through state sponsors of terrorism. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens.

Why not? Does the "shall not be infringed" part mean something else?

And I'm not talking about arab terrorists, I'm talking about American born arabs... or even you or I...

So you're proving you're the reasonable one by taking our position and taking it to hyperbolic extremes leaving reality in your rear view mirror.

And you think that proves that you're the one being reasonable.

 

[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 right is being taken away, you still have the right to bear arms, just not certain arms. The 2nd doesn't say the right to bear ANY arms that you want, just to bear arms, which you are still able to do.

No right is being taken away? I'm pretty sure we're specifically talking about taking 2nd Amendment rights away from adults under the age of 21. How can you say they can't exercise that right and at the same time say it isn't being taken away?

Nah, I didn't throw it, I tossed it.

No, this isn't a beer, it's an adult beverage.

No, you're rights aren't being taken away, young man, you just can't exercise them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That doesn't contradict what she said.

There are Arab terrorists who want to buy a nuke. So?

Don't Arab-Americans have a 2nd Amendment right to own one?

Multiple people including me keep asking you how they get nuclear material without affecting the rights of other citizens and you keep running and hiding

Why should a suitcase nuke affect other people?

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

 

[kaz]

Don't Arab-Americans have a 2nd Amendment right to own one?

Multiple people including me keep asking you how they get nuclear material without affecting the rights of other citizens and you keep running and hiding

Why should a suitcase nuke affect other people?

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

She is arguing that if you admit don't have the right to weapons grade plutonium then you have no right to any gun other than what government decides to allow you to have. Yes, it is that stupid.

Basically, rather than protecting our rights as we mistakenly believe, Taz is informing us that the second amendment is actually a power of government to decide what guns we may or may not have

 

[boedicca]

Don't Arab-Americans have a 2nd Amendment right to own one?

Multiple people including me keep asking you how they get nuclear material without affecting the rights of other citizens and you keep running and hiding

Why should a suitcase nuke affect other people?

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment covers "Arms", which are personally held weapons. Bombs, missiles, cannons, etc. are "Ordnance" or "Artillery". Conflating the two is a tactic the anti-guns types use.

 

[xyz]

Multiple people including me keep asking you how they get nuclear material without affecting the rights of other citizens and you keep running and hiding

Why should a suitcase nuke affect other people?

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment covers "Arms", which are personally held weapons. Bombs, missiles, cannons, etc. are "Ordnance" or "Artillery". Conflating the two is a tactic the anti-guns types use.

That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.

 

[boedicca]

Why should a suitcase nuke affect other people?

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment covers "Arms", which are personally held weapons. Bombs, missiles, cannons, etc. are "Ordnance" or "Artillery". Conflating the two is a tactic the anti-guns types use.

That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.

It did. At the time of the American Revolution, arms were firearms (weapons that could be carried such as rifles, knives, and swords). Mounted weapons such as cannons and their projectile ammo were known as Ordnance.

 

[Rambunctious]

Eat shit and die lying left wing media...there hows that? BOO!

 

[Rambunctious]

Many time in history the news outlets have had to be corrected and cleansed...
When they continue to lie they are of no worth...

How Did the British Press Cover the American Revolution?

 

[kaz]

Why should a suitcase nuke affect other people?

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment covers "Arms", which are personally held weapons. Bombs, missiles, cannons, etc. are "Ordnance" or "Artillery". Conflating the two is a tactic the anti-guns types use.

That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.

Which is why you have a vehicle to amend the Constitution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. There is no 5/9 in the Constitution

 

[xyz]

Because fissionable materials are dangerous simply by sitting and existing. They're radioactive. Therefore, their ownership is restricted.

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment covers "Arms", which are personally held weapons. Bombs, missiles, cannons, etc. are "Ordnance" or "Artillery". Conflating the two is a tactic the anti-guns types use.

That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.

Which is why you have a vehicle to amend the Constitution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. There is no 5/9 in the Constitution

I don't think there is a reason to amend the Constitution.

However, I do find it interesting that certain states accept or don't accept bigger guns which have to be fired from a stand, so there is some leverage left up to the states to decide what is and what is not legal to own.

 

[blastoff]

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?

Provide a link that shows how the NRA drove the asshole to the school, or how the NRA prevented the FBI, the Sheriff, and the school admin from doing their jobs. I'll wait.

So that's the only way that anyone can abet a murder? Did you know that there are plenty of other ways? Ok, you're a mod (so par for the course), and I'll cut you some slack. But now you know.

Did you know that your hatred of all things NRA, while indicative of a severe mental disturbance, is not evidence of "abetting" a crime? Did you know that the laws pertaining to that crime are very well known, and if there were even the slightest chance of bringing the NRA to trial there are a whole host of progressive DA's who would leap at the chance to make their bones in a case like that.

The fact that there isn't a single one doing it should prove to you that your mental illness is affecting only you.

That was cruel and unusual punishment, albeit very well said! Nonetheless, I'm gonna have to report you to a mod.

 

[hunarcy]

It couldn't possibly be because they're an organization of gun owners and those who support the right to own guns, some of whom are under the age of 21? Nahh, that would be too simple and logical.

Maybe those who already own those "soon to be banned guns" didn't want to lose the right to own their own property? Also too simple and logical.

Since Florida never mentioned taking certain guns away, your hypothesis suffers an EPIC FAIL. Better luck next time.

Sorry, but the only epic fail here is your attempt to think without the proper equipment.

You don't have to mention "certain guns" when you're banning a group of people from purchasing ANY gun.

So do you think children should be able to buy guns?

Are 18 year olds children or are they legally adults?

Does the 2nd Amendment say anything to that? No, so children are allowed to own guns.

Can't bring yourself to answer the question?

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Of course they are not. They were working to protect the rights of their members in Florida. Your irrational views aside, they are not a lobby for gun manufacturers. You just want to call the organization that to malign the NRA membership. I am a Progressive and would NEVER join a gun lobbying group.

You do realize that the NRA lobbies and pays off politicians in Washington, don't you? So yes, you are part of a gun lobby group.

No, I belong to a group that hires lobbyists to protect my rights.. They do not lobby for gun manufacturers,

Then why doesn't the NRA get upset over you not being able to buy a nuke? Plus all the other arms that you're not allowed to buy? Why does the NRA only care about guns?

"nukes" are not arms. As for their focus on firearms, it might have to do with the fact that they are the National RIFLE Association, not the National butterfly knife Association

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Of course they are not. They were working to protect the rights of their members in Florida. Your irrational views aside, they are not a lobby for gun manufacturers. You just want to call the organization that to malign the NRA membership. I am a Progressive and would NEVER join a gun lobbying group.

You do realize that the NRA lobbies and pays off politicians in Washington, don't you? So yes, you are part of a gun lobby group.

No, I belong to a group that hires lobbyists to protect my rights.. They do not lobby for gun manufacturers,

Then why doesn't the NRA get upset over you not being able to buy a nuke? Plus all the other arms that you're not allowed to buy? Why does the NRA only care about guns?

Cannons are guns too, and they're definitely arms as well.

Cannons are ordinance, not arms. Look it up.

 

[hunarcy]

Of course they are not. They were working to protect the rights of their members in Florida. Your irrational views aside, they are not a lobby for gun manufacturers. You just want to call the organization that to malign the NRA membership. I am a Progressive and would NEVER join a gun lobbying group.

You do realize that the NRA lobbies and pays off politicians in Washington, don't you? So yes, you are part of a gun lobby group.

No, I belong to a group that hires lobbyists to protect my rights.. They do not lobby for gun manufacturers,

Then why doesn't the NRA get upset over you not being able to buy a nuke? Plus all the other arms that you're not allowed to buy? Why does the NRA only care about guns?

I'd have to look this up, but I believe it's not "a nuke" that you're legally prevented from owning. It's fissionable material, such as uranium or plutonium, that's restricted.

Then look it up, there are some Arab-Americans that would like their 2nd Amendment restored fully and would like to buy a nuke.

Profile much?