Rules for Thee, Not for Me

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

No, she was a commie. working to promote communism and communist ideals in Cuba.

And no, "whataboutism" would mean there's an anti-gun conservative somewhere who got his guns stolen, and I'm ignoring that instance to talk about this instance. And it's actually YOUR post that's the deflection for bringing - I'm assuming you're referring to - Trump, since my post had nothing to do with Trump. So....

Deflection alert! Nice try, and thanks for playing.

Thanks, I will play.

So can I call Trump a Radical Soshialist Liberal since he was a Democrat before he decided to run for #45?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Thanks, I will play.

So can I call Trump a Radical Soshialist Liberal since he was a Democrat before he decided to run for #45?

You're getting further off the beaten path there, Rajoo...

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

You're getting further off the beaten path there, Rajoo...

On the contrary, strictly responding to your cirteria.
If you can call Ms. Bass who in her formative years identified with communism, so what? Its what she is now matters.

So why isn't Trump a Radical Liberal. Please answer that question instead of beating around the bush.

[RickeyM]

Assuming an awful lot without any proof or evidence there Spanky, but then again, it's the Reich-Wing way

[whell]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Assuming an awful lot without any proof or evidence there Spanky, but then again, it's the Reich-Wing way

- She admitted the guns were stolen. That assumes nothing.
- She and the cops confirmed nothing else was taken. That assumes nothing.
- She's a communist, worked with the communists and Cuba, and was taken off Biden's list of potential Veep candidates because of remarks praising Castro. That assumes noting.

What am I "assuming"?

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by whell

- She admitted the guns were stolen. That assumes nothing.
- She and the cops confirmed nothing else was taken. That assumes nothing.
- She's a communist, worked with the communists and Cuba, and was taken off Biden's list of potential Veep candidates because of remarks praising Castro. That assumes noting.

What am I "assuming"?

That "The Dems have been telling us there are too many guns in America" for one thing. Maybe if you had said some Dems but then that wouldn't fit your narrative. There are other things but discussing with you is just a waist of bandwidth. This is just another post by you so you can refute any reply not agreeing with what you've written. You bore me.

[GChief]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Maybe if you had said some Dems

Yep, my dad bleeds blue and always has but he could arm a couple squads with his collection. He is also a lifetime (and involved as an instructor) NRA member. Party affiliation has little to do with gun ownership.

Edit: He also is typically carrying.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...224505697.html

[I]The rising crime rate in Los Angeles is a hot-button issue in this year’s race for Los Angeles mayor. And the issue just hit closer to home for one candidate.

Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass said Saturday that her home was burglarized...

I have owned guns for over 50 years and have 8 of them now and am unabashed supporter of enhanced gun control (FWIW, none are autoloading). Similarly, I enjoy the occasional drink, but don't supported unfettered access to alcohol. I owned a Porsche for 10 years, but support speed limits.

Reasonable limits are the key and the laws concerning gun ownership are unreasonably lax IMO (and I'm a range safety officer at my gun club, an NRA Distinguished Expert in smallbore and taught Rifle & Shotgun Shooting Merit Badge to Boy Scouts for several years).

AFAIK, there aren't any prominent Democrats who oppose private ownership of firearms by responsible adults in the home. In other words, your contrived controversy isn't actually a controversy, but more stupid infotainment from wingnut media that you credulously glom on to.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

AFAIK, there aren't any prominent Democrats who oppose private ownership of firearms by responsible adults in the home. In other words, your contrived controversy isn't actually a controversy, but more stupid infotainment from wingnut media that you credulously glom on to.

Did I say that there were Democrats that want to repeal the 2nd amendment? No.

Does that mean that you're correct and they don't exist? Hell no.

But since you brought it up:

There are any number of folks on the left who have voiced support for repealing the 2nd Amendment. These are the Dems and leftists who write speeches, drive media and help to form a consensus on the left. They also influence legislation.

It used to be that these folks didn't go public about their agenda, they simply pushed for more gun control legislation (the effect of continuing to go back to the legislative well on the federal and state level is playing the long game of watering down 2nd amendment rights until their unenforceable or unrecognizable). Now. they just come right out and tell you that they advocate repeal of the 2nd amendment.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1666...amendment-guns

Here's another one:

https://deadline.com/2022/05/michael...nt-1235033193/

Here's another one:

https://www.thenation.com/article/ar...t-gun-control/

Here's another one (older article but Turley hasn't changed his position on this):

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...nts/463644002/

The article mentions former SCOTUS judge Stevens voiced support for repealing it. Not a Dem, but not exactly a died-in-the-wool conservative either.

Here's another one - a notable Dem who's run for office a couple of times, including a run for US Senate:

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/08...ass-shootings/

Democrats ran in 2020 for a "national gun licensing program" where (for example) a person seeking to purchase a gun would have to submit their fingerprints, and basic background information and complete a certified gun safety course. The FBI would then run a comprehensive background check before issuing a federal gun license that would be renewable every five years.

Nationalizing something makes it easier to politicize. Make the process harder, create a regulatory agency that changes the rules based on fiat or whim, stop issuing certifications to gun safety course providers, etc.

So, you're underinformed comment about this being a contrived controversy is, well, underinformed. But I'm confident you'll continue to disagree.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Did I say that there were Democrats that want to repeal the 2nd amendment? No.

Does that mean that you're correct and they don't exist? Hell no.

But since you brought it up:

There are any number of folks on the left who have voiced support for repealing the 2nd Amendment. These are the Dems and leftists who write speeches, drive media and help to form a consensus on the left. They also influence legislation.

It used to be that these folks didn't go public about their agenda, they simply pushed for more gun control legislation (the effect of continuing to go back to the legislative well on the federal and state level is playing the long game of watering down 2nd amendment rights until their unenforceable or unrecognizable). Now. they just come right out and tell you that they advocate repeal of the 2nd amendment.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1666...amendment-guns

Here's another one:

https://deadline.com/2022/05/michael...nt-1235033193/

Here's another one:

https://www.thenation.com/article/ar...t-gun-control/

Here's another one (older article but Turley hasn't changed his position on this):

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...nts/463644002/

The article mentions former SCOTUS judge Stevens voiced support for repealing it. Not a Dem, but not exactly a died-in-the-wool conservative either.

Here's another one - a notable Dem who's run for office a couple of times, including a run for US Senate:

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/08...ass-shootings/

Democrats ran in 2020 for a "national gun licensing program" where (for example) a person seeking to purchase a gun would have to submit their fingerprints, and basic background information and complete a certified gun safety course. The FBI would then run a comprehensive background check before issuing a federal gun license that would be renewable every five years.

Nationalizing something makes it easier to politicize. Make the process harder, create a regulatory agency that changes the rules based on fiat or whim, stop issuing certifications to gun safety course providers, etc.

So, you're underinformed comment about this being a contrived controversy is, well, underinformed. But I'm confident you'll continue to disagree.

You sure can gallop with the best of those Gish Gallopers, ol' pardner.