Bump Stocks Are Legal Again

Interesting, because that's not the argument you've made before.

wow reported; enjoy your ban

Interesting that you would tag me into a thread on an entirely different subject and then immediately lie.

But since you want to pull all this back up, my previous statement still stands:

by putting inalienable rights above enumerated ones?

yeah, I guess that is pretty "leftist".

Not sure how "hypocrisy" factors in though?

Are you jsut spewing non sequiturs again?

When his Youtube heroes use these arguments, the starving hobo they have play the liberal stammers, and cries, and falls to his knees, and finds Jesus.

This seemed familiar. When I went looking for the last time I had this conversation, somehow that was your fault as well:

Wait, I thought there were no such things as “inalienable rights”? That that was made up by horrible old slave-owning white men to justify their rebellion? Isn’t that what we’ve been told repeatedly?

where did that idea ever come from?

life, liberty, pursuing happiness... those are pretty inalienable.

now if you wanna explain to me how accessorizing the means to deny others that (along with the right to trial) is "inalienable"...

@Bailey wants it both ways, my body, my choice when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to vaccines and masks, you have no choice. Of course he constantly tries to weasel his way out of it.

You’re the weasel.

You’re trying to take a slogan for one thing and fit it as an excuse for doing the wrong thing.

That’s YOU’RE problem, not Bailey’s.

What’s the wrong thing that you think I’m making an excuse for?

And if abortions were catching, you might have a point.

Don't remind me of "Unexpected".

I think you're making an excuse not to address the actual issue in the thread.
If you want to bitch about abortion, go do it in another thread. Instead, I ask you a direct question that you can't answer, and you call out @Bailey and run away from me like a scalded dog.

People: "Bump stocks are bad."

FF: "But people have the right to own them."

People: "All rights have restrictions."

FF: "Oh, so it's okay to restrict gun rights but not abortion rights?"

People: "Abortion has, and should have, some restrictions as well."

FF: "Bailey says differently."

Bailey: "No I didn't."

FF: "Bailey says abortion should have zero restrictions."

Bailey: "I didn't say that."

People: "And the rest of us are saying there should be some restrictions."

FF: "BAILEY SAYS ABORTION SHOULD BE UNRESTRICTED BUT YOU GUYS WANT RESTRICTIONS ON GUNS SO YOU'RE ALL HYPOCRITES!!!11!!"

That's some high-brow, well-informed debate right there.

That’s just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to FF’s arguments.

But, @Bailey says FF makes good arguments.

If you can’t defend your rights, you will very quickly have no rights. Which is the entire point of the Second Amendment.

Which is baffling, given how the French solved that problem.

In any actual rebellion--at least an organized one--the logical first step would be to seize any state and federal armory you could. Even in 1789, it would’ve been difficult to organize a successful rebellion without doing so. Today it would be impossible. Private ownership of guns is not going to suffice to outfit an effective military force. The US Armed Forces would wipe the floor with any of these pathetic militias we have around.

Uhm. No, it’s not. I know there is a subsection of society that thinks they are clever and know all about the Constitution, But, they are as misled as those of the Christian religion misled to believe abortion is murder.

The point of the second amendment is exactly the same point as the rest of the constitution. That one segment of the population (the wealthy) would not have more rights than the average person. This comes in the form of guns because in England in 1770, it was illegal for a common person to own a gun.

Nonviolent resistance proves potent weapon
Erica Chenoweth discovers it is more successful in effecting change than violent campaigns

This is completely backwards like your normal guntard rhetoric. Guns cost money. No one gives you a gun to defend your opinion. You are not born with them like you are with the ability to communicate and form opinions. You have no right to go in and demand a gun without the wealth to purchase them.

Therefor guns do the most to empower the rich over those who cannot afford them. You want a gun because you are rich and want top piss on the poor. That is the only reason you wish to have a gun.

Well that, and because guns go boom.

Guns go boom, is a fun thing for many, but when you talk about people like @Lanzman we see that boom equates to power over others as an expression of intimidation and the association with power over them. It is a fantasy where he thinks he is protecting his rights. He says it is against a tyranical government that would waste him in seconds while never even giving him a target to shoot at. He knows he would not even get a shot on the US military or police if they came for him.

The gun is there for him to overpower the rest of us and to protect his established wealth against other people. This is the fantasy of the rich guy with the gun. They want it to keep their wealth from the poors and to threaten those people who cannot afford a gun. This is an interesting delusion because poor people have guns, and if their gun made a boom he would shit himself faster than me after some coffee and an ice cream.

Seriously, this is SUCH a refreshing attitude.

Exhibit A, titled "Tell me you've never fired a gun without telling me you've never fired a gun."

Those two lost their licenses for awhile, IIRC

great post

Totally. Most people who bring out their gun are doing it for performative threats. When you hold your gun in a position like that you are just displaying it and your lack of desire to actually shoot it. It is just an empty threat. It is just saying I saw a bunch of poors at my house so I brought out my gun to show them and tell them I am better than they are and they should know their place. These two never learned how to hold their gun at the ready, and they probably don't know shit about shooting when under real fear for their life.

They also were well aware those people were there to protest and were never concerned about breaking into a house and stealing. If you saw a crowd of people coming towards and into your house and you felt you were in real danger you would not be parading around shouting taunts at them like that.