Clearly, Biden is trying to antagonize gun owners into action

[SoCo]

Thanks appreciate it. Unlike far left individuals they do not see the need to appreciate others help. Must be the clown in charge of our country.

You omitted some commas and two of the three sentences are missing subjects.

 

[TarHeelEer]

And Mandalay has hundreds of rooms facing the plaza. Is the armed population supposed to just shoot into every one of them to defend themselves?

Are you really arguing that a citizen with a firearm in that plaza could have stopped the massacre?

Not at all. The only thing I took issue with is what I replied to. Perhaps you should've led with this argument instead of "they didn't know where it was coming from".

 

[WVUALLEN]

You omitted some commas and two of the three sentences are missing subjects.

God bless you child. What would the world do without your intelligence? Glad you have spell check and sentence structure software available to you.

 

[dave]

But BLM and Antifa believe the government is tyrannical and oppressing them. According the to logic here, that justifies taking up arms against their oppressor. See the problem with that line of thinking?

Part of the Constitiuional Law curriculum at Cambridge was international law. The first day of classes the professor had already written on the board, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." His first remarks were if anyone can't understand the ture meaning behind this concept, drop the class and take another.

That is exaclty the issue here. The tyranny you believe should be fought against is the tyranny how you want to define it, but that isn't how it works. BLM and Antifa are taking up arms against their "oppressor" just like you say the Constituiton justifies.

You are confusing things a bit. Defending yourself against tyranny and using tyranny as an excuse to attack police and to burn and destroy property are not the same thing.

 

[SoCo]

Not at all. The only thing I took issue with is what I replied to. Perhaps you should've led with this argument instead of "they didn't know where it was coming from".

They didn't know where it was coming from. Identifying a building with hundreds of rooms facing the plaza means little.

As one concert-goer recounted: "We couldn't tell where it was coming from," said Sorenson of Newport Beach, California, who had traveled to Las Vegas with his girlfriend for the event.

But I guess you had it all figured out from your sofa in North Carolina.

 

[TarHeelEer]

They didn't know where it was coming from. Identifying a building with hundreds of rooms facing the plaza means little.

As one concert-goer recounted: "We couldn't tell where it was coming from," said Sorenson of Newport Beach, California, who had traveled to Las Vegas with his girlfriend for the event.

But I guess you had it all figured out from your sofa in North Carolina.

Next time I get out, I'll get some video for you, if we haven't SHTF by then. Maybe they thought it came from Caesar's half a mile away.

 

[dave]

They didn't know where it was coming from. Identifying a building with hundreds of rooms facing the plaza means little.

As one concert-goer recounted: "We couldn't tell where it was coming from," said Sorenson of Newport Beach, California, who had traveled to Las Vegas with his girlfriend for the event.

But I guess you had it all figured out from your sofa in North Carolina.

I bet people there with combat experience knew where it was coming from. If you haven't been trained at all I could shoot at you from across the street and most people wouldn't know where it was coming from.

 

[SoCo]

You are confusing things a bit. Defending yourself against tyranny and using tyranny as an excuse to attack police and to burn and destroy property are not the same thing.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

How would you defend yourself from tyranny without attacking government officials and destroying property? The Boston Tea Party activists destroyed property and are celebrated as patriotic heroes and that was over taxes.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I bet people there with combat experience knew where it was coming from. If you haven't been trained at all I could shoot at you from across the street and most people wouldn't know where it was coming from.

That might make sense...

 

[dave]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

How would you defend yourself from tyranny without attacking government officials and destroying property? The Boston Tea Party activists destroyed property and are celebrated as patriotic heroes and that was over taxes.

Like I said earlier. You don't understand and that is Ok.

 

[SoCo]

Like I said earlier. You don't understand and that is Ok.

Your dodge is noted.

 

[dave]

Your dodge is noted.

There is no dodge. You are not listening to anyone so repeating myself is a waste of time.

 

[SoCo]

There is no dodge. You are not listening to anyone so repeating myself is a waste of time.

Then I'll look forward to continuing this discussion without your involvement.

We all win.

 

[dave]

Then I'll look forward to continuing this discussion without your involvement.

We all win.

Yes. That is how everyone should react to closed minded arguments.

 

[Gunny46]

That's how the far left liberal thinks.

Or tyrants.

 

[SoCo]

Yes. That is how everyone should react to closed minded arguments.

I agree. "You don't understand" is a close-minded argument. And that is ok.

 

[Gunny46]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

That's a line used by terrorists and anarchist to defend their actions. It's not as intellectually deep as you are trying to make it.

 

[SoCo]

That might make sense...

But most of the concert-goers weren't combat veterans.

 

[TarHeelEer]

But most of the concert-goers weren't combat veterans.

Right, if you've never heard a gunshot, especially in valleys (or city streets), you might not have a clue.

 

[dave]

I agree. "You don't understand" is a close-minded argument. And that is ok.

Now you are just trying too hard. It's kinda sad.

It's OK if you don't understand the point everyone else is making. Just accept it and move on. Instead you are raping a strawman and labeling everyone who disagrees based on the strawman.

Nobody here is calling for violent overthrow of the government. By suggesting otherwise you have put an end to logical debate

 

[MountaineerWV]

This gun debate is difficult. The Constitution is specific, but not exactly. But we have restrictions on guns already, but we don't.

Hypothetical:
Could anyone on here come to my home invited by myself or my family, bring with you a gun, then have myself tell you that the weapon is not allowed on my property, and yet you refuse and keep your gun and remain on my property without recourse?

 

[dave]

This gun debate is difficult. The Constitution is specific, but not exactly. But we have restrictions on guns already, but we don't.

Hypothetical:
Could anyone on here come to my home invited by myself or my family, bring with you a gun, then have myself tell you that the weapon is not allowed on my property, and yet you refuse and keep your gun and remain on my property without recourse?

If you ask them to leave they are trespassing

 

[TarHeelEer]

This gun debate is difficult. The Constitution is specific, but not exactly. But we have restrictions on guns already, but we don't.

Hypothetical:
Could anyone on here come to my home invited by myself or my family, bring with you a gun, then have myself tell you that the weapon is not allowed on my property, and yet you refuse and keep your gun and remain on my property without recourse?

They are then trespassing.

Any respectable gun owner, particularly CCL holders, wouldn't be in your home in the first place if they knew.

 

[Gunny46]

This gun debate is difficult. The Constitution is specific, but not exactly. But we have restrictions on guns already, but we don't.

Hypothetical:
Could anyone on here come to my home invited by myself or my family, bring with you a gun, then have myself tell you that the weapon is not allowed on my property, and yet you refuse and keep your gun and remain on my property without recourse?

Actually concealed carry laws cover that. You must announce you are carrying. If you don't want my gun there I have to leave or I'm trespassing. I also don't hang out with weak minded individuals like that so it's never been a problem.

 

[NYC_Eer]

Now you are just trying too hard. It's kinda sad.

It's OK if you don't understand the point everyone else is making. Just accept it and move on. Instead you are raping a strawman and labeling everyone who disagrees based on the strawman.

Nobody here is calling for violent overthrow of the government. By suggesting otherwise you have put an end to logical debate

Oh the trying too had and its kinda of sad argument. Online troll 101.

 

[dave]

Oh the trying too had and its kinda of sad argument. Online troll 101.

Let me know when you have added anything to the board. First time for everything.

Now go groom up them kids.

 

[Gunny46]

They are then trespassing.

Any respectable gun owner, particularly CCL holders, wouldn't be in your home in the first place if they knew.

Would make me wonder if he had The Gimp in his basement.

 

[MountaineerWV]

If you ask them to leave they are trespassing

No. I ask them to leave their weapon off my property. But they refuse. Do I have that right to deny someone a weapon on private property? If the answer is "yes", then that does show evidence that Constitutional rights can be restricted/limited.

I'm not saying we should do it, just saying that people claiming that these rights are "absolute" are inaccurate.

 

[Gunny46]

No. I ask them to leave their weapon off my property. But they refuse. Do I have that right to deny someone a weapon on private property? If the answer is "yes", then that does show evidence that Constitutional rights can be restricted/limited.

I'm not saying we should do it, just saying that people claiming that these rights are "absolute" are inaccurate.

There's too many restrictive laws now. Enforce them. We don't need more. Anything other than that is punishing good people.

 

[SoCo]

No. I ask them to leave their weapon off my property. But they refuse. Do I have that right to deny someone a weapon on private property? If the answer is "yes", then that does show evidence that Constitutional rights can be restricted/limited.

I'm not saying we should do it, just saying that people claiming that these rights are "absolute" are inaccurate.

Can't bring them in Courthouses. Can't carry them with you through security at airports.

Did the NRA really prohibit firearms at its recent convention while Trump was speaking? If so, that is the best damn case of irony ever!

 

[Gunny46]

Can't bring them in Courthouses. Can't carry them with you through security at airports.

Did the NRA really prohibit firearms at its recent convention while Trump was speaking? If so, that is the best damn case of irony ever!

That's not the same thing as what Democrat politicians are saying and trying to do. You're pissing in the wind.

 

[SoCo]

Now you are just trying too hard. It's kinda sad.

It's OK if you don't understand the point everyone else is making. Just accept it and move on. Instead you are raping a strawman and labeling everyone who disagrees based on the strawman.

Nobody here is calling for violent overthrow of the government. By suggesting otherwise you have put an end to logical debate

I never even remotely suggested that gun owners are calling for a violent overthrow of the government. That is simply dishonest.

Strawman indeed.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Can't bring them in Courthouses. Can't carry them with you through security at airports.

Did the NRA really prohibit firearms at its recent convention while Trump was speaking? If so, that is the best damn case of irony ever!

Yes. They did.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The Boston Tea Party didn't directly involve fighting British officials or destroying government property either.

The tarring and feathering was against an agent of the crown and the tea’s tax money was revenue of the crown. I think, no?

 

[Gunny46]

Yes. They did.

He's your former President under Secret Service Protection. This is a silly argument. You understand that when you invite him.

 

[dave]

No. I ask them to leave their weapon off my property. But they refuse. Do I have that right to deny someone a weapon on private property? If the answer is "yes", then that does show evidence that Constitutional rights can be restricted/limited.

I'm not saying we should do it, just saying that people claiming that these rights are "absolute" are inaccurate.

What you ask someone to do on your property is not protected by the constitution. The 2nd amendment restricts the government not you. You can restrict people on your property.

 

[Gunny46]

Police are government officers.

The Boston Tea Party didn't directly involve fighting British officials or destroying government property either.

You got a great country out of it that deserves to be protected. Those who can't comprehend that should move to China.

 

[MountaineerWV]

The tarring and feathering was against an agent of the crown and the tea’s tax money was revenue of the crown. I think, no?

The Tea Act of 1773 gave a British merchant company (East India Tea Company) exclusive selling rights in the Colonies. It really made tea cheaper for the buyers, but greatly hurt the Colonial merchants. So it really wasn't a "tax" like so many people think.

The Sons of Liberty were extraordinary men.......but what they did and their actions........they became "heroes". And their stories are often used as inspiration for militias and other groups looking for violence against the government.

 

[dave]

I never even remotely suggested that gun owners are calling for a violent overthrow of the government. That is simply dishonest.

Strawman indeed.

How is it dishonest? Several times in this thread you have compared people here in this thread to BLM and their violence against our government.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The Tea Act of 1773 gave a British merchant company (East India Tea Company) exclusive selling rights in the Colonies. It really made tea cheaper for the buyers, but greatly hurt the Colonial merchants. So it really wasn't a "tax" like so many people think.

The Sons of Liberty were extraordinary men.......but what they did and their actions........they became "heroes". And their stories are often used as inspiration for militias and other groups looking for violence against the government.

I’m thinking there was some letter of marque? Splitting hairs. I’ll concede the point.