Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumI apologize...
... if mocking the ridiculous "constitutional" arguments made by the NRA and its followers is something that offends people who post here.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)Some serious discussion would be cool as well.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so don't feel shy - it lightens the mood.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)He has no respect for the 3rd Amendment.
I hate when that happens.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)It speaks to individual soldiers and houses, not to states, militia or "the People."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...you missed the sarcasm thing.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)sylvi
(813 posts)When mockery is the first tool used out of the gate, I assign as much importance to it as it merits, which is to say, zero.
What I don't appreciate is the insinuation that I support the NRA, am a member of the NRA, or particularly agree with any conservative bent of the NRA leadership merely because we share a few of the same views on the 2nd Amendment.
Liberals and libertarians share much in common, but neither I nor any liberal that I know of wants to be identified as a libertarian, neither would we appreciate being squawked at for using "libertarian talking points" when arguing for drug legalization, reproductive freedom or civil liberties, even though our views on those topics may be the same.
Personally, I believe that most of the overwrought "Y-y-you support the NRA!!!" and "That's an NRA talking point!!!" crap around here comes from people either unsure of their own arguments or too intellectually lazy to formulate an argument to begin with, so they figure a little ad hominem/well-poisoning will be enough to shut their opponent up. They're wrong.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)well said, sylvi.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)What strikes your fancy today?
State rights Interpretation? So said Hickman, but later rejected in Silveira.
Collective rights interpretation? So said Silveira, but later rejected by the Heller dissents.
Limited Individual Interpretation? That was rejected out of hand in Silveira, but forced into service by the Heller dissents when nothing else was left.
sylvi
(813 posts)Oh, you and your "ridiculous 'constitutional' arguments made by the NRA and its followers".
Now go away, or I will mock thee!
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Keep working on it though -- you're only a mile away.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)Some people are sarcasm impaired and/or have some reason to shut down any discussion of the background check bill.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Most gun owners here and in the general population support background checks. Maybe I missed something . Maybe your sarcasm isn't as apparent as you would seem to think.
There's this to use to so your sarcasm isn't missed.
Take Care
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)... ta thread I started in which I mocked the ridiculous "constitutional" arguments against background checks. You and a few others jumped in immediately to shut down the conversation. I don't know why you wanted to shut down a discussion of the background checks issue. But you do.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Do you mean this one that was locked by Krispos?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172120282
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)Do you dare say?
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)The link I provided points to the only OP, other than this one, that you've posted in the last few days in the Gungeon. You accused me of getting one of your OPs shut down. I was trying to figure out which one that would be.
I don't have an agenda. What's your point? "Do you dare say?"
Have a great Sunday!! Beautiful day here 80 degrees and Bright blue skies. Time for some natural vitamin D.
Socal31
(2,484 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)so...