Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 75

Thread: 39 percent of democrats support repeal of Second Amendment

  1. #1

    Exclamation 39 percent of democrats support repeal of Second Amendment

    One in five Americans wants the Second Amendment to be repealed, national survey finds

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8e73644d0cf7

    By Christopher Ingraham March 27 at 11:40 AM

    Here's where Americans stand on gun control



    One consequence of the success of the National Rifle Association's expansive gun-rights agenda — and its lobbying power in Congress — is that groups favoring more gun control have pared down their ambitions in recent years.

    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, for instance, no longer talks about banning handguns. Advocates have moved away from the term “gun control” in favor of more specific language like “gun violence” and “gun safety.” Democratic leaders in Congress have grown timid about proposing significant new restrictions on gun ownership.

    In that context it's a bit of a jolt to read an op-ed published Tuesday by retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens titled “Repeal the Second Amendment.” Stevens is something of an expert on the issue, having considered the proper scope of the Second Amendment in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller.

    In his op-ed, Stevens praises the work of the March for Our Lives organizers and urges the group to “seek more effective and more lasting reform” via a “repeal of the Second Amendment.” He calls the Second Amendment a “relic of the 18th century,” concerned more with the balance of power between the states and the federal government than with individual gun rights.

    But public-opinion polling shows that it would take a lot of persuading to bring the public around to that view. In February, for instance, the Economist and YouGov asked Americans whether they supported a repeal of the Second Amendment. Twenty-one percent said they favored such a proposal, compared with 60 percent in opposition.

    The poll does, however, show surprisingly robust support for Second Amendment repeal (39 percent) among Democrats (by contrast, 8 percent of Republicans would support a full repeal). Black Americans (30 percent) and Northeasterners (28 percent) also showed relatively high levels of support.

    One caveat is that other polls have shown that many Americans do not know what the Second Amendment is. In 1999, for instance, a Hearst Newspapers poll found that 59 percent of respondents said they did not know the purpose of the Second Amendment. But national conversations on gun rights since then have probably shrunk that number, and the Economist/YouGov poll discusses the Second Amendment in the context of guns.

    Beyond that, the poll showed that a plurality of Americans do not see the Second Amendment as something set in stone. Forty-six percent said they favored modifying the Second Amendment to allow for stricter regulations, compared with 39 percent who were opposed. More than three-quarters of Democrats said they supported modifying the Second Amendment, as did more than one-quarter of Republicans.

    Those numbers are surprising, given that virtually no political leaders in the country are publicly advocating for a repeal or modification of the Second Amendment. Democrat Hillary Clinton made gun control a focal point of her presidential bid but spoke of the need to “balance legitimate Second Amendment-rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures.” In 2016, President Barack Obama felt compelled to publicly state that “I believe in the Second Amendment” as he announced a set of extremely limited executive actions on guns.

    Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has for years been a leading proponent of gun control in the Senate, wrote in 2012, “let me be clear: If an individual wants to purchase a weapon for hunting or self-defense, I support that right.”

    But the polling above suggests that a significant chunk of the Democratic electorate would be willing to support a much more restrictive gun-policy agenda than the party currently supports. The coming of age of the “mass shooting generation” may increase that divide.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    We don't need to repeal the 2nd amendment, we just need to make it more clear that it only protects weapons designed for hunting deer.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  4. #3
    I'd like to see the amount of repeal support among women and foreign born as well.

    I'd reckon that the support would be double digits higher than non support.

  5. #4
    Of course, the Bolshevik left hates the First Amendment just as much.


    Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America

    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ica-ncna832246

    Maybe it's time we stop defending Nazis.

    by Noah Berlatsky / Dec.23.2017 / 7:44 AM ET

    Must we defend Nazis?

    For many free speech advocates, the answer is not just "yes," but "hell, yes." Nazi ideas are, supposedly, among the most despised ideas in the United States. It's precisely because they are so loathed that Nazis must be vigorously defended, the argument goes. As the executive director of the ACLU said in a recent interview: "If we grant government the ability to deny people protest permits because of what they say or how they say it or what they stand for, that we'll find then that speech in other contexts will be regulated and suppressed."

    If Nazis are silenced, other people will be silenced. You need to protect people who hate marginalized people, or marginalized people will be targeted next.

    Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic of the University of Alabama School of Law reject this conventional wisdom. The two professors have collaborated on numerous volumes about racism and the law, including "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction" (2012).

    In their new book "Must We Defend Nazis?: Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy," they argue that in fact regulating hate speech would make the United States a fairer, more equal and less hateful place.

    "The best way to preserve lizards is not to preserve hawks," they insist in the book. "Our answer to the question, does defending Nazis really strengthen the system of free speech is, then, generally, no. Sometimes defending Nazis is simply defending Nazis."

    The ACLU and its many supporters see this as sacrilege. But Delgado and Stefancic make a compelling case.

    Delgado and Stefanic argue the price for freedom in this case may be higher than we think.

    They point out, in the first place, that hate speech causes real harm. Free speech advocates will sometimes insist that words don't cause damage. They disregard — or even mock — the concerns of students on college campus who protest speeches by controversial figures like Milo Yiannopolous, who has used his speaking engagements to harass trans students, among other marginalized groups. They argue that victims should toughen up and ignore hateful words, or accept them as the price of freedom.

    Delgado and Stefanic, though, argue the price for freedom in this case may be higher than we think. For example, a John Hopkins study published in 2013 concluded that being exposed to racism can lead to high blood pressure and stress among African Americans. Similarly, according to research by Claude Steele at Cornell, negative stereotypes affect African-American self-perception, and can lead to lower test scores. More, the rash of recent stories about sexual harassment in the workplace provide stark examples of how hostile words or technically non-violent actions — like men exposing themselves —can create an intolerable environment, forcing women out of industries and leading to long-term stress and trauma.

    Free speech advocates also overstate the benefits of free speech, Delgado and Stefanic argue. The ACLU and its adherents claim that marginalized people who ask for restrictions on hate speech don't understand the importance of free speech to civil rights movements. But that argument is paternalistic, and also incorrect.

    In reality, free speech rights have rarely protected black people in this country — especially activists of color. "The First Amendment co-existed quite comfortably with slavery for nearly 100 years and was never thought to cover abolitionist speech or speech deemed adverse to American interests," Delgado told me in an email.

    Get the Think newsletter.
    SUBSCRIBE

    The First Amendment co-existed quite comfortably with slavery for nearly 100 years.

    The First Amendment co-existed quite comfortably with slavery for nearly 100 years.
    Currently the federal government is prosecuting 200 people for being present at the protests during Donald Trump's inauguration, including journalists and street medics. The ACLU's decision to defend the Nazis in Charlottesville didn't magically prevent the government from arresting, harassing and attempting to imprison many peaceful protestors for decades.

    This doesn't mean that the First Amendment is useless, clearly. Hopefully it will play a part in helping the protesters, known widely as the J20 defendants, go free. But it also isn't a cure for all social ills. Hate speech hurts marginalized people, and the First Amendment doesn't always and invariably protect them. Free speech advocates say that hate speech "is a price 'we' pay for living in a free society," Delgado told me, but they never stop "to add up the two accounts" or look "to see on whom the price is imposed."

    The alternative, Delgado and Stefanic argue, is to start trying to add up those accounts. They point out that courts have already granted relief for torts of outrage or emotional distress in cases like Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach, in which a Mexican American worker was subjected to racist abuse.

    The First Amendment was in part intended to prevent government reprisal against critics. But why can’t the legal system prevent one citizen from attacking another verbally? Schools — yes, including state schools — should certainly be able to institute hate speech regulations.

    Probably the most popular counterargument to regulating speech is the slipper slope argument. If the U.S. became more willing to restrict hate speech, what would be the result? Would we head down a path towards totalitarianism?

    In practice, the U.S. already restricts speech in many ways — the courts have allowed limits on death threats, on libel, on slander, on advocating violence.

    Of course not. In practice, the U.S. already restricts speech in many ways — the courts have allowed limits on death threats, on libel, on slander on advocating violence. Many free speech advocates are willing to try to balance free speech harms and free speech goods — except, it seems, when it comes to hate speech against marginalized communities.

    Other countries are willing to take the health and safety of their most vulnerable citizens into account. Were the U.S. to properly recognize the danger of hate speech, we wouldn't look like Orwell's "1984." Instead, Delgado told me, we'd "look like France, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada or Sweden, all of whom regulate hate speech but where the political climate is just as free and healthy as our own, if not more so."

    The First Amendment is a crucial right, and one which, used thoughtfully and with good will, can help to make our society both more free and more equal. But currently free speech legislation, and free speech ideology, is backward-looking and reactionary. "Free speech!" is a battle cry that has been picked up by neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They see First Amendment advocates as allies —and it's not because they love freedom.

    It's long past time we acknowledged that speech directing hatred and vitriol at marginalized people does not advance freedom or liberty. Rather than defending Nazis always and everywhere, no matter what, we need to take a more balanced approach. That approach should include defending the people that Nazis want to murder.

    Noah Berlatsky is a freelance writer. He edits the online comics-and-culture website The Hooded Utilitarian and is the author of the book "Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism in the Marston/Peter Comics, 1941-1948."

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Of course, the Bolshevik left hates the First Amendment just as much.


    Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America

    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ica-ncna832246

    Maybe it's time we stop defending Nazis.

    by Noah Berlatsky / Dec.23.2017 / 7:44 AM ET

    Must we defend Nazis?

    For many free speech advocates, the answer is not just "yes," but "hell, yes." Nazi ideas are, supposedly, among the most despised ideas in the United States. It's precisely because they are so loathed that Nazis must be vigorously defended, the argument goes. As the executive director of the ACLU said in a recent interview: "If we grant government the ability to deny people protest permits because of what they say or how they say it or what they stand for, that we'll find then that speech in other contexts will be regulated and suppressed."

    If Nazis are silenced, other people will be silenced. You need to protect people who hate marginalized people, or marginalized people will be targeted next.

    Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic of the University of Alabama School of Law reject this conventional wisdom. The two professors have collaborated on numerous volumes about racism and the law, including "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction" (2012).

    In their new book "Must We Defend Nazis?: Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy," they argue that in fact regulating hate speech would make the United States a fairer, more equal and less hateful place.

    "The best way to preserve lizards is not to preserve hawks," they insist in the book. "Our answer to the question, does defending Nazis really strengthen the system of free speech is, then, generally, no. Sometimes defending Nazis is simply defending Nazis."

    The ACLU and its many supporters see this as sacrilege. But Delgado and Stefancic make a compelling case.

    Delgado and Stefanic argue the price for freedom in this case may be higher than we think.

    They point out, in the first place, that hate speech causes real harm. Free speech advocates will sometimes insist that words don't cause damage. They disregard — or even mock — the concerns of students on college campus who protest speeches by controversial figures like Milo Yiannopolous, who has used his speaking engagements to harass trans students, among other marginalized groups. They argue that victims should toughen up and ignore hateful words, or accept them as the price of freedom.

    Delgado and Stefanic, though, argue the price for freedom in this case may be higher than we think. For example, a John Hopkins study published in 2013 concluded that being exposed to racism can lead to high blood pressure and stress among African Americans. Similarly, according to research by Claude Steele at Cornell, negative stereotypes affect African-American self-perception, and can lead to lower test scores. More, the rash of recent stories about sexual harassment in the workplace provide stark examples of how hostile words or technically non-violent actions — like men exposing themselves —can create an intolerable environment, forcing women out of industries and leading to long-term stress and trauma.

    Free speech advocates also overstate the benefits of free speech, Delgado and Stefanic argue. The ACLU and its adherents claim that marginalized people who ask for restrictions on hate speech don't understand the importance of free speech to civil rights movements. But that argument is paternalistic, and also incorrect.

    In reality, free speech rights have rarely protected black people in this country — especially activists of color. "The First Amendment co-existed quite comfortably with slavery for nearly 100 years and was never thought to cover abolitionist speech or speech deemed adverse to American interests," Delgado told me in an email.

    Get the Think newsletter.
    SUBSCRIBE

    The First Amendment co-existed quite comfortably with slavery for nearly 100 years.

    The First Amendment co-existed quite comfortably with slavery for nearly 100 years.
    Currently the federal government is prosecuting 200 people for being present at the protests during Donald Trump's inauguration, including journalists and street medics. The ACLU's decision to defend the Nazis in Charlottesville didn't magically prevent the government from arresting, harassing and attempting to imprison many peaceful protestors for decades.

    This doesn't mean that the First Amendment is useless, clearly. Hopefully it will play a part in helping the protesters, known widely as the J20 defendants, go free. But it also isn't a cure for all social ills. Hate speech hurts marginalized people, and the First Amendment doesn't always and invariably protect them. Free speech advocates say that hate speech "is a price 'we' pay for living in a free society," Delgado told me, but they never stop "to add up the two accounts" or look "to see on whom the price is imposed."

    The alternative, Delgado and Stefanic argue, is to start trying to add up those accounts. They point out that courts have already granted relief for torts of outrage or emotional distress in cases like Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach, in which a Mexican American worker was subjected to racist abuse.

    The First Amendment was in part intended to prevent government reprisal against critics. But why can’t the legal system prevent one citizen from attacking another verbally? Schools — yes, including state schools — should certainly be able to institute hate speech regulations.

    Probably the most popular counterargument to regulating speech is the slipper slope argument. If the U.S. became more willing to restrict hate speech, what would be the result? Would we head down a path towards totalitarianism?

    In practice, the U.S. already restricts speech in many ways — the courts have allowed limits on death threats, on libel, on slander, on advocating violence.

    Of course not. In practice, the U.S. already restricts speech in many ways — the courts have allowed limits on death threats, on libel, on slander on advocating violence. Many free speech advocates are willing to try to balance free speech harms and free speech goods — except, it seems, when it comes to hate speech against marginalized communities.

    Other countries are willing to take the health and safety of their most vulnerable citizens into account. Were the U.S. to properly recognize the danger of hate speech, we wouldn't look like Orwell's "1984." Instead, Delgado told me, we'd "look like France, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada or Sweden, all of whom regulate hate speech but where the political climate is just as free and healthy as our own, if not more so."

    The First Amendment is a crucial right, and one which, used thoughtfully and with good will, can help to make our society both more free and more equal. But currently free speech legislation, and free speech ideology, is backward-looking and reactionary. "Free speech!" is a battle cry that has been picked up by neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They see First Amendment advocates as allies —and it's not because they love freedom.

    It's long past time we acknowledged that speech directing hatred and vitriol at marginalized people does not advance freedom or liberty. Rather than defending Nazis always and everywhere, no matter what, we need to take a more balanced approach. That approach should include defending the people that Nazis want to murder.

    Noah Berlatsky is a freelance writer. He edits the online comics-and-culture website The Hooded Utilitarian and is the author of the book "Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism in the Marston/Peter Comics, 1941-1948."
    The useful idiots always think it will be their enemies that lose protection and that it will never happen to them.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    We don't need to repeal the 2nd amendment, we just need to make it more clear that it only protects weapons designed for hunting deer.
    I'll be hunting deer with a variety of AK 47s.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Ryan
    In Washington you can see them everywhere: the Parasites and baby Stalins sucking the life out of a once-great nation.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post

    Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic of the University of Alabama School of Law reject this conventional wisdom. The two professors have collaborated on numerous volumes about racism and the law, including "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction" (2012).

    In their new book "Must We Defend Nazis?: Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy," they argue that in fact regulating hate speech would make the United States a fairer, more equal and less hateful place.
    "First, Critical Race Theory proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

    Worth noting Barack Obama's favorite professor came up with the idea for Critical Race Theory.

    To recap, freedom is racist. That literally is what they believe.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The useful idiots always think it will be their enemies that lose protection and that it will never happen to them.
    Unfortunately the only time they realize their mistake is when their heads are on a chopping block.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Maybe Trump can come to a deal with them to trade repealing the 2nd in exchange for also getting rid of the 1st or 4th.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I'd like to see the amount of repeal support among women and foreign born as well.

    I'd reckon that the support would be double digits higher than non support.
    As a person born in a place where only police and bad guys carry guns. It wasn't easy wrapping my head around the idea that ordinary people can easily obtain firearm.

    It took me a while to get used to it. I still wouldnt own a gun and have yet to shoot one. 1st amendment was easy get comfortable with compared to the 2nd.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Maybe Trump can come to a deal with them to trade repealing the 2nd in exchange for also getting rid of the 1st or 4th.
    LOL, ya, right after bump stocks are banned.. Hahhaha
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  14. #12
    But Delgado and Stefancic make a compelling case.
    Not only is their case non-compelling--it's false. It has a false premise. Their is no such thing as "hate speech."



    Free speech advocates will sometimes insist that words don't cause damage.
    **
    They argue that victims should toughen up and ignore hateful words, or accept them as the price of freedom.
    I don't argue any such thing. Your reaction to something/somebody is not my problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  15. #13
    I was reading this article about AR-15s in California. California made a law that requires people register certain types of guns that have some of the features of the AR-15, but as soon as they passed the law gun makers started designing AR-15 features that would get around the law so people wouldn't have to register them.

    One of the main attributes of the law was to outlaw the bullet-button for ejecting magazines, they thought it would end up taking longer to reload.

    Turns out the work-around they created made it faster to reload.. LOL

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23...15-rifles.html
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I don't argue any such thing. Your reaction to something/somebody is not my problem.
    Eliminating tough talk is a small price to pay in order to obtain our diversity objectives the party set out for us in the current five year plan, comrade.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Eliminating tough talk is a small price to pay in order to obtain our diversity objectives the party set out for us in the current five year plan, comrade.









    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    LOL, ya, right after bump stocks are banned.. Hahhaha
    I found this image of dannno:

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I found this image of dannno:

    Does President Trump actually have the power to ban bump stocks?

    No one has ever accused Donald Trump of being humble (well, except Donald Trump). Yet at times, the president takes actions pitched as flowing from a sense of constitutional humility — that however much he wants to do something, he just can’t.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.43ee7b32ab30



    Why would I be nervous? I was 100% positive Trump would not ban bump stocks when everybody else here was freaking the $#@! out. I was 98% sure he would win the election against Hillary when everybody here thought he was the spoiler.

    You on the other hand, you are continuously proven wrong. You are the one who should be nervous.
    Last edited by dannno; 03-28-2018 at 11:45 AM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    LOL, ya, right after bump stocks are banned.. Hahhaha
    Last edited by donnay; 03-28-2018 at 11:52 AM.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Does President Trump actually have the power to ban bump stocks?

    No one has ever accused Donald Trump of being humble (well, except Donald Trump). Yet at times, the president takes actions pitched as flowing from a sense of constitutional humility — that however much he wants to do something, he just can’t.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.43ee7b32ab30



    Why would I be nervous? I was 100% positive Trump would not ban bump stocks when everybody else here was freaking the $#@! out. I was 98% sure he would win the election against Hillary when everybody here thought he was the spoiler.

    You on the other hand, you are continuously proven wrong. You are the one who should be nervous.
    He technically will not, because this is correct, technically he can't.

    He will direct his apparatchiks in the regulatory state to do so.

    But make no mistake, it will be at his direction, so don't you dare try and crawfish out of Donating to Glen on an absurd technicality.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I'd like to see the amount of repeal support among women and foreign born as well.

    I'd reckon that the support would be double digits higher than non support.
    Damn it...


  24. #21
    As far as I can tell, so does the NRA.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    He technically will not, because this is correct, technically he can't.

    He will direct his apparatchiks in the regulatory state to do so.

    But make no mistake, it will be at his direction, so don't you dare try and crawfish out of Donating to Glen on an absurd technicality.

    The terms of the bet are pretty clear, you made them, if you can buy a bumpstock or other similar device legally somewhere in the US, then I win. If you can't, I lose. Doesn't matter how it gets banned..

    And ya, you can't use past donations toward paying the bet, but one could potentially donate the $50 early if they declare at the time it is made that is the early payment for their bet, I don't see any issue with that, it could be that they end up winning the bet and it just ends up being a donation.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  26. #23
    Trump sets up legal fight over bump stocks
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...er-bump-stocks
    Those arguing the administration does not have the power to ban bump stocks say the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is effectively adding to and changing the definition of a machine gun
    ....
    Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Friday the Department of Justice will soon start accepting public comments on a proposed rule to define machine gun to include bump stock devices — effectively banning them.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    He technically will not, because this is correct, technically he can't.

    He will direct his apparatchiks in the regulatory state to do so.

    But make no mistake, it will be at his direction, so don't you dare try and crawfish out of Donating to Glen on an absurd technicality.
    Now wait one second here. You're trying to pull a Kramer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS0lRyEBRnk
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 03-28-2018 at 12:14 PM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    The terms of the bet are pretty clear, you made them, if you can buy a bumpstock or other similar device legally somewhere in the US, then I win. If you can't, I lose. Doesn't matter how it gets banned..

    And ya, you can't use past donations toward paying the bet, but one could potentially donate the $50 early if they declare at the time it is made that is the early payment for their bet, I don't see any issue with that, it could be that they end up winning the bet and it just ends up being a donation.
    Agreed.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Now wait one second here. You'll trying to pull a Kramer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS0lRyEBRnk
    Me???

    Oh no, the bet's still on.

    There will be no levels...of bumpstocks...I am quite sure of it.

    That's why I bet.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by fedupinmo View Post
    I'll be hunting deer with a variety of AK 47s.
    Eat dust, you stinking squirrel!



    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-28-2018 at 12:59 PM.

  32. #28
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  33. #29
    Despite wild theories,there is no reliable evidence that Trump was covertly supporting anti-gun groups.

    COULTER 2018: TRUMP 'SHALLOW, LAZY IGNORAMUS'...



    Conservative leader on Trump: 'He's a fraud and has betrayed us twice now'

    'Gun-grabber-in-chief': Conservatives turn on Trump as threat to confiscate guns prompts Second Amendment-related outrage

    'He's a fraud and has betrayed us twice now'

    Thursday 1 March 2018

    Donald Trump has sparked fury among gun owners and conservatives after repeatedly backing proposals to tighten gun control laws.

    The US President called for a “beautiful” bill that would expand background checks on gun buyers, prevent mentally ill people from accessing firearms, and restrict teenagers from buying assault weapons.

    The 71-year-old's comments in the hour-long televised meeting with politicians put him at odds with the National Rifle Association (NRA), the gun lobbying organisation which made record contributions to his 2016 presidential campaign.

    Read more






    Michael Hammond, lawyer for Gun Owners of America, another gun group with more than a million members, accused Mr Trump of becoming the “gun-grabber-in-chief”.

    “If he succeeds in doing everything he talked about in the meeting, he will far surpass Barack Obama as an enemy of the Second Amendment,” he said.
    After the meeting, far-right news outlet Breitbart ran a headline reading: "Trump the Gun Grabber: Cedes Dems' Wish List— Bump Stocks, Buying Age, 'Assault Weapons,' Background Checks.”
    Many conservatives also took to social media to express their outrage.
    Tonight's Podcast: Trump was terrible today during a bipartisan meeting on guns, said due process should come after gun confiscation, more. https://t.co/5ZYR7TNFiZ #tcot
    — Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) March 1, 2018

    Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Pat Toomey, who were both at the White House meeting, now plan to reintroduce a failed 2013 bill that would impose background checks for all commercial gun purchases.
    Mr Trump accused Mr Toomey of being “afraid of the NRA” after the senator told the President his bill did not include a ban on 18- to 21-year-olds buying assault weapons.
    “Some of you people are petrified of the NRA. You can’t be petrified,” he added.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8234606.html




    Related

    Liberal democrat icon Chuck Schumer applauds Trump

    CPAC UNBUCKLED: Speaker criticizes attendees for ‘brainless, sinister, clownish' Trumpism

  34. #30
    Half don't even know what the Second Amendment is. From the OP:

    One caveat is that other polls have shown that many Americans do not know what the Second Amendment is. In 1999, for instance, a Hearst Newspapers poll found that 59 percent of respondents said they did not know the purpose of the Second Amendment. But national conversations on gun rights since then have probably shrunk that number, and the Economist/YouGov poll discusses the Second Amendment in the context of guns.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Repeal Second Amendment
    By aGameOfThrones in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-03-2014, 06:23 AM
  2. NRA’s Keene: Democrats Shocked by Support for Second Amendment
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-15-2013, 11:56 PM
  3. Democrats Push for Constitutional Amendment to Roll Back First Amendment
    By John F Kennedy III in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-20-2012, 03:46 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-02-2011, 09:14 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-18-2010, 05:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •