A simple question for gun rights folk.

[NiftyNiblick]

conquer
Konker
overcome and take control of (a place or people) by use of military force.

example sentence:

"China conquered the usa after first dividing it through many means."

Not my philosophy. PARTITION is my philosophy.
Nobody gets hurt until the Red States starve without Blue State tax money.
And no civilized person cares about that.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Not my philosophy. PARTITION is my philosophy.
Nobody gets hurt until the Red States starve without Blue State tax money.
And no civilized person cares about that.

oh yes. partitioning always goes well.

why would a globalist who hates borders want further balkanization?

would the border between american partitions be enforced? if so, why?

and if not, why not?

(20 points)

 

[NiftyNiblick]

oh yes. partitioning always goes well.

why would a globalist who hates borders want further balkanization?

would the border between american partitions be enforced? if so, why?

and if not, why not?

(20 points)

The border could be a soft border. Who cares?
Everybody is missing the point.

If we're not writing each others' laws, dictating each others' values, writing each others' tax codes, and deciding each others' boundaries between private and public sectors, where's our argument?
We can be neighbors and trade partners peacefully because we're no longer bothering one another.
The Red states can have their Christian Taliban and unfettered firearms use and even that fucking shitkicker music that they like.
The Blue states can have their universal healthcare, women's reproductive rights, strong unions, and secular government.

We'll obey each other's laws when we're in each others' nation, just as we do now in Canada, Mexico, or abroad.

It's not a complicated concept. The important thing is that the way we're doing it now, we viscerally hate one another, and civil war MAY break out.
Better to have a mediated divorce than a holocaust...which has to be coming.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

The border could be a soft border. Who cares?
Everybody is missing the point.

If we're not writing each others' laws, dictating each others' values, writing each others' tax codes, and deciding each others' boundaries between private and public sectors, where's our argument?
We can be neighbors and trade partners peacefully because we're no longer bothering one another.
The Red states can have their Christian Taliban and unfettered firearms use and even that fucking shitkicker music that they like.
The Blue states can have their universal healthcare, women's reproductive rights, strong unions, and secular government.

We'll obey each other's laws when we're in each others' nation, just as we do now in Canada, Mexico, or abroad.

It's not a complicated concept. The important thing is that the way we're doing it now, we viscerally hate one another, and civil war MAY break out.
Better to have a mediated divorce than a holocaust...which has to be coming.

hmmm.....

go on.

 

[Into the Night]

Obviously, you didn't die doing it before you got strapped, least you wouldn't be alive now. Oh, and as to your premise that an armed society is a polite society

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/concealed-carry-linked-increased-gun-violence-wisconsin/

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/concealed-carry/

So by your own argument, one should carry a gun.

 

[Into the Night]

As to your first paragraph....the ONLY "RIGHT" has to deal with A WELL REGULATED MILITIA....not for anyone who can afford it to walk around strapped 24/7.

Rights do not come from a piece of paper, dumbass. The right of self defense is inherent. That is true for States as well as individuals. Even animals.

Beyond hunting for food, there were RULES that each colonial state had regarding weapons.

You cannot ban or limit any weapon.

Hell, even towns of our "wild west" period had rules regarding gun carrying.

You cannot ban or limit any weapon.

And let's be clear as to "more prepared"....that is a bit paranoid, because if you really want to "be prepared" in that mindset, you'd have a back pack with a gas mask, geiger counter, med kit, food & water rations, ham radio along with that gun and extra ammo.

Some people do. I have all of these, as it happens.

Extreme, you say?

No. Prudent. I have a back pack, I have a gas mask (which I use for painting), a Geiger counter (they are fun to play with!), first aid kits (I build them myself rather than use the crappy prepackaged kits), food, water, several ham radios (some I've built), several guns (which are used for different purposes but all of them can be used for self defense), and of course ammunition for them.

Well, the average Joe Schmoe walking around with a gun is extreme,

Not at all. The average Joe Schmoe is walking around with a gun right now, and he isn't shooting at you or anyone else. Deal with it.

because a cop won't know the difference when responding to a crime in progress,

Sure they do.

and given most NY'ers hair triggers, I shudder to think what the next "road rage" incident will bring.

Road rage with a deadly weapon is a crime. Defending yourself from someone shooting at you isn't.

As for you in Missouri....how would you feel letting into the mix folks who unlike you didn't meet the requirements that you did, but now carry that gun?

Missouri or Washington (where I live), I don't give a fuck about who carries a gun. I carry a gun.

 

[Into the Night]

Here's the thing: the good guy with a gun myth doesn't actually work in real life.

Sure it does.

https://thehill.com/changing-americ...ails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/

Special pleading fallacy.

And more CCW permits does not automatically equate a lower crime rate:

No one said it did.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/concealed-carry/
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/concealed-carry-crime-rates/

So you are showing why it's a good idea to carry a gun.

 

[Into the Night]

We know what the law does, but the question is WHY do advocates feel its needed. To date, a few on this thread honestly answered that lifestyles wouldn't be affected, but people would "feel" safer. In my life time, people feeling unsafe change their habits and routines.....so this "feeling" seems rather hyped if not altogether a bogus reason. Just saying.

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

Umm, no.


Per federal law 18 USC § 926A, every U.S. citizen may legally transport firearms across state lines as long as he or she is legally allowed to possess the weapons in both the state of origin as well as the destination.

As for the 1986 FOPA;

https://government-programs.laws.com/firearms-owners-protection-act

Which NY and NJ routinely ignore. Both are violating the law.

 

[Into the Night]

A fatalistic outlook. If a law can be changed one way, it can be changed another. Before this ruling, each state regulated to a degree it's CCW laws. Hell, you still have state recognized militias outside of the National Guard.

Not perfect, but this latest ruling is making things worse. As the SCOTUS changes in the next decade or so, the rules may swing back towards sanity.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Not really, because the State still reverse the right to regulate it's laws.

No State has authority to ban or limit guns.

The fed may give any gun owning yahoo the right to walk around strapped, but the State decides what's off limits outside a city street.

Unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

As to your first paragraph … we definitely disagree as to what the “right” of the individual is. And yes, even in the days of the “Wild West” people like Wyatt Earp violated constitutional rights thinking that was the solution.

As to your second paragraph … they’re already there. They’ve been there all along.

Rights do not come from the Constitution or any other piece of paper.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you know what the word "conquer" even means, AssFace?

Where in my proposal for partition do you see the word "conquer," you disgusting pile of pigshit?

My plan is for everybody to do their own thing, following their own values, even if those values are as fucked up as yours.

Your wish is for assholes like yourself to force civilized people to live your pathetic way.

You're the one being belligerent, and if I'm wrong and hell does exist, you'll pay for it dearly.

More than likely, though, somebody will just find you floating face down in a river, and after experiencing a little short-term pain and misery, your troubles will be over.
You don't deserve it, but you'll probably find the perfect peace of non-existence in the long run.
You're a lucky mutant, AssFace.

Word games. No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

Not my philosophy. PARTITION is my philosophy.
Nobody gets hurt until the Red States starve without Blue State tax money.
And no civilized person cares about that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Okay. YOU JUST TRY TO eat without farmers, ranchers, truckers, and all the other people you hate!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Umm, no.


Per federal law 18 USC § 926A, every U.S. citizen may legally transport firearms across state lines as long as he or she is legally allowed to possess the weapons in both the state of origin as well as the destination.

As for the 1986 FOPA;

https://government-programs.laws.com/firearms-owners-protection-act

all I can say is that you're a blind and ignorant moron as to what happens across the nation today. you absolute REFUSE to accept the truth, choosing instead to stay mired in your own murky delusions and consider that to be reality.

 

[Taichiliberal]

My hope is that within a few decades, the United States of America will be a former nation.
Too many Americans have to compromise much too much for us to remain united. We should each be able to do our own thing instead of constantly trying to impose our will on one another like two tribes of savages.
We viscerally hate one another and don't have to. Partition is the answer.

Okay then, MOVE. That's one of the few perks of being a citizen in America...if you don't like it, you can leave and no one will stop you (unless you plan to sell military or business secrets to enemy/competitive countries). Outside of that, what you are offering is impossible without another (or several) civil wars. Anything worthwhile requires patients and endurance. Remember, Ghandi and King changed the course of their respective countries without firing a shot or throwing a punch. THAT TOOK GUTS. Bitching without a viable alternative/solution helps no one.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Obviously, you didn't die doing it before you got strapped, least you wouldn't be alive now. Oh, and as to your premise that an armed society is a polite society

https://www.americanprogress.org/art...nce-wisconsin/

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-l...ncealed-carry/

So by your own argument, one should carry a gun.

And neither of my links give credence to your response.

Okay, you're not really this dumb so you're response is just insipid stubbornness. This is why trying to discuss or debate with you becomes pointless after awhile, because you just can't concede you're wrong on any level.

As you and two other posters point out, carrying that gun in public would have NO effect on your daily routine or lifestyle. So this leads to another question...given that facts show an INCREASE in accidental shootings or gun related crimes with CCW, why should I be at risk of a stray bullet or crossfire because you have some psychological or political axe to grind?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
As to your first paragraph....the ONLY "RIGHT" has to deal with A WELL REGULATED MILITIA....not for anyone who can afford it to walk around strapped 24/7.

Rights do not come from a piece of paper, dumbass. The right of self defense is inherent. That is true for States as well as individuals. Even animals.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Beyond hunting for food, there were RULES that each colonial state had regarding weapons.

You cannot ban or limit any weapon.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Hell, even towns of our "wild west" period had rules regarding gun carrying.

You cannot ban or limit any weapon.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And let's be clear as to "more prepared"....that is a bit paranoid, because if you really want to "be prepared" in that mindset, you'd have a back pack with a gas mask, geiger counter, med kit, food & water rations, ham radio along with that gun and extra ammo.

Some people do. I have all of these, as it happens.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Extreme, you say?

No. Prudent. I have a back pack, I have a gas mask (which I use for painting), a Geiger counter (they are fun to play with!), first aid kits (I build them myself rather than use the crappy prepackaged kits), food, water, several ham radios (some I've built), several guns (which are used for different purposes but all of them can be used for self defense), and of course ammunition for them.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Well, the average Joe Schmoe walking around with a gun is extreme,

Not at all. The average Joe Schmoe is walking around with a gun right now, and he isn't shooting at you or anyone else. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
because a cop won't know the difference when responding to a crime in progress,

Sure they do.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
and given most NY'ers hair triggers, I shudder to think what the next "road rage" incident will bring.

Road rage with a deadly weapon is a crime. Defending yourself from someone shooting at you isn't.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
As for you in Missouri....how would you feel letting into the mix folks who unlike you didn't meet the requirements that you did, but now carry that gun?

Missouri or Washington (where I live), I don't give a fuck about who carries a gun. I carry a gun.

You do waste a LOT of time and space expressing your ignorant opinions as if they are fact. I'll just take them down by the numbers with a little logical review:

1. "Inherent" from what? Where do you think you "inherit" any right(s) under USA law? Hint: Groups of people map out LAWS that include RIGHTS and get the masses to agree upon them. That's how we live together without consistently trying to kill, steal or enslave each other. Without such documentation (Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments), any yahoo can claim the right to anything...and if they have the physical means to get away with it, they YOU have no right to disagree. THAT'S HOW ANIMALS DO IT. Capice'?

2. History proves you wrong. Go to your local library and learn how there were rules and regulations by colonial states regarding possession and up keep of weapons. As time progressed, State & federal laws were passed were full military weapons could NOT be owned by civilians. The 1994 AWB banned specific weapons...and despite all of this a plethora or revolvers, hunting rifles, semi-auto guns and rifles, shot guns were available to the general public. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

3. See #2. Apropos to that; https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

4. You may have all of that at your HOME...you do NOT carry it with you in a large backpack while going to work or food shopping or general traveling. Don't lie and say you do, because no job (commercial or federal) or restaurant or business office that I know of would allow it. And THAT'S the problem with pushing a CCW freebie in a place like NYC, because it increases the chance of a simple argument becoming a shoot out instead of a fist fight. That can catch innocents with stray bullets or in the cross fire. And it increases the chance of cops shooting the "good guy with a gun" when responding to an active crime scene.

5. That's nice. See #4.

6. Ahh, but we as a society were dealing with it... Despite the fact of the following that folk like you want to ignore: https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-guns-self-defense/

https://www.bet.com/article/eokrmr/black-man-kaun-green-disarm-shooter-shot-by-police

What the SCOTUS ruling does is opens the potential for an increase in such incidences, let alone stray bullet and cross fire hits by arguments escalating into gun fights.

7. See #6 for a reality check.

8. If you have people trying to run each other over, throwing things at each other mid traffic or getting out of cars and fist fighting, that's road rage. Now add a gun in the mix. How stupid is it to potentially let some hot head have a gun in such an incidence, and then say, "well, give everyone a gun to protect themselves".? Ever here of the old saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?l Now you're not stupid, so don't waste time and space with stubborn repetition of "good guy with a gun" mantra, because it doesn't work here.

9. A childish and selfish response, clearly showing an indifference to fellow citizen's safety. What is frightening is that YOU (allegedly) carry a gun in public with some fantasy of a Wild West or a TV cop show shoot out with you as the victor and no bystander casualties. I know you will ignore, deny and defy the facts and logic of 1-8....I only hope you're just an armchair troll blowing smoke, because if not you're another statistic (or cause of such) waiting to happen.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
A fatalistic outlook. If a law can be changed one way, it can be changed another. Before this ruling, each state regulated to a degree it's CCW laws. Hell, you still have state recognized militias outside of the National Guard.

Not perfect, but this latest ruling is making things worse. As the SCOTUS changes in the next decade or so, the rules may swing back towards sanity.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

Who said it did? The SCOTUS does have the power to change the way the Constitution is interpreted for each case brought before it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Here's the thing: the good guy with a gun myth doesn't actually work in real life.

Sure it does.

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
https://thehill.com/changing-america...officer-kills/

Special pleading fallacy.

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And more CCW permits does not automatically equate a lower crime rate:

No one said it did.

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-l...ncealed-carry/
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/con...y-crime-rates/

So you are showing why it's a good idea to carry a gun.

Anything you can't disprove or factually contradict you label a "fallacy"....a subjective term that only the person you see in the mirror is buying into.

And it's obvious that you don't accept facts....you just state silly revisions to suit your opinions. Sad.

And the question is even more prudent: what can you do that you couldn't do before you could carry a gun 24/7?