Federal appeals court expands gun rights

[tabzer]

Loving @WeedZ ignoring @Hanafuda because "you can't be wrong if you don't respond".

 

[Xzi]

Loving @WeedZ ignoring @Hanafuda because "you can't be wrong if you don't respond".

It's quite obvious the point is that there has to be some line drawn. I'm sure even the most rabid gun nut here would agree we can't give the general public access to RPGs and missile-equipped drones. Hanafuda is nostalgic for a time when kids could bring rifles to school, but that was also a time when the US had an abundance of mental hospitals and no internet radicalization pipelines. We need solutions for the problems of our present reality, not for the childish Chuck Norris-esque fantasies playing out in conservatives' heads.

Besides, they've already demonstrated that they'd be in full support of unelected authoritarians/fascists taking over government anyway. Totally invalidates the argument that they need fully automatic weapons to fight against such an outcome.

 

[tabzer]

It's quite obvious the point is that there has to be some line drawn. I'm sure even the most rabid gun nut here would agree we can't give the general public access to RPGs and missile-equipped drones. Hanafuda is nostalgic for a time when kids could bring rifles to school, but that was also a time when the US had an abundance of mental hospitals and no internet radicalization pipelines. We need solutions for the problems of our present reality, not for the childish Chuck Norris-esque fantasies playing out in conservatives' heads.

Besides, they've already demonstrated that they'd be in full support of unelected authoritarians/fascists taking over government anyway. Totally invalidates the argument that they need fully automatic weapons to fight against such an outcome.

Your willingness to opt out of personal responsibility and go the way of "how should we maintain the existence of those who have no opinions whatsoever" speaks a lot to me. Frankly, I just disagree with the mechanism that allowed you to exist.

Pretending that the most successful mob was "democratically elected" is the never-ending startup slogan of America.

 

[smf]

The well regulated militia is to the left of the comma. Go ask your English teacher about the use of commas, especially in the late 18th century.

My english teacher is long dead, as is the language that was used in the 2nd amendment.

Even legal experts have disagreed what that statement meant.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2017/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017-10-3.pdf

Pretending that the most successful mob was "democratically elected" is the never-ending startup slogan of America.

That certainly describes the Trump presidency quite well, I'm not convinced that it's never ending though.

It's fruitless to discuss with far-right Republicans (or conservatives in general). They sincerely believe they are the "good guys", and that the nebulous "left" is evil (when they're ignorant of what the left even is. The Democratic Party is a mixed/big-tent party, not a formally leftist party.)

Right, it's how you can tell a lot about the republicans who post on here.
They have literally no self reflection, they are just bigots who believe everything that comes out of their own mouth.

But I don't think we should press the point so much, because then they might learn how to hide it & it's best for us if they keep vocalizing their distorted views.

 

[Hanafuda]

Hanafuda is nostalgic for a time when kids could bring rifles to school ....

That was a different post. My reply to @WeedZ concerned his statement that full auto firearms and all "armor piercing" ammo are banned, and his implied suggestion that the use of "well-regulated" in the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment means the founders intended for firearm ownership to be subject to many rules and restrictions imposed by federal administrative agencies. Since the Constitution itself doesn't even account for the existence of such agencies, and the 18th century usage of the idiom "well-regulated" is known to have meant well equipped, well tuned, in good condition, etc., the claim is spurious. And it's not the first time I have addressed such suggestion from @WeedZ ... the post I linked to above was another instance where he simply never responded to it, hence @tabzer's post above.

As for "nostalgia" .... well, not really. Having been in high school in the 80's, I am not in synch with the current fascination with that decade. There were some things that were great about it, but it wasn't all peaches and cream. The only reason for pointing out that things were different then where this thread is concerned is that gun ownership and access to firearms was prevalent then same as now. And the transition from "asylums" to local mental health community care began in the 60's and was more or less complete by the mid-80's, so that's not it either. A contributing factor to crazy people committing atrocious crimes perhaps, but not the cause. It is people that have changed, and yes I agree with you that the internet has much to do with facilitating it. But I wouldn't want to go back to the world before it, no "nostalgia" where that's concerned.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Docs don't make kick backs from those drugs anymore, but it's more of a bandaid on a bigger societal issue of medicating behavior

Their behavior says otherwise.

Kid comes in, not behaving in school, bam medication

This is on purpose.

Issue is non pharmacological interventions require way more resources so people end up on drugs

Also, Big Pharma doesn't make billions off of people sitting in psychologists offices.

You know cognitive behavioral therapy is deemed just as effective as SSRI for depression? Guess how often I have seen a patient do CBT for depression - zero times - the services just aren't available and often insurance won't cover therapy -- but they are more than happy to cover drugs

Insurance companies are in on the Big Pharma grift too. Pfizer made over $100 billion last year, enough to buy off any doctor, hospital, insurance company, regulatory board like the CDC and FDA and uniparty politician.

 

[x65943]

Their behavior says otherwise.

This is on purpose.

Also, Big Pharma doesn't make billions off of people sitting in psychologists offices.

Insurance companies are in on the Big Pharma grift too. Pfizer made over $100 billion last year, enough to buy off any doctor, hospital, insurance company, regulatory board like the CDC and FDA and uniparty politician.

As a doc myself I am telling you docs really aren't getting kickbacks from simple meds like that - those drugs aren't even that expensive

The drugs that really make money are monoclonal antibodies

 

[TraderPatTX]

My english teacher is long dead, as is the language that was used in the 2nd amendment.

So the language both of us is speaking is dead. Interesting hot take you go there.

Even legal experts have disagreed what that statement meant.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2017/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017-10-3.pdf

Legal experts are paid to disagree.

Right, it's how you can tell a lot about the republicans who post on here.
They have literally no self reflection, they are just bigots who believe everything that comes out of their own mouth.

Leftists here just regurgitate corporate media talking points.

But I don't think we should press the point so much, because then they might learn how to hide it & it's best for us if they keep vocalizing their distorted views.

Why would I want to hide my views on a public forum that I am freely commenting on? What dastardly views do you think I'm hiding? What evil plans am I concocting down here in Florida? LOL!!!!

Post automatically merged: Feb 16, 2023

As a doc myself I am telling you docs really aren't getting kickbacks from simple meds like that - those drugs aren't even that expensive

So no doctor anywhere is making any money off of pushing SSRI's on people? You know this for a fact?

The drugs that really make money are monoclonal antibodies

You should check out the price of chemotherapy that doctors push on cancer patients with no alternatives. I have first hand experience that cancer doctors are making bank prescribing that poison.

 

[smf]

So the language both of us is speaking is dead. Interesting hot take you go there.

You should ask your english teacher about the evolution of language.
Shakespear spoke english too, the language he spoke is long dead.

Americans speak their own bastardized english, and have their own spelling because they were deemed too dumb to learn the original spelling.

Legal experts are paid to disagree.

Judges aren't paid to disagree.

Why would I want to hide my views on a public forum that I am freely commenting on?

Public decency?

 

[Xzi]

Your willingness to opt out of personal responsibility and go the way of "how should we maintain the existence of those who have no opinions whatsoever" speaks a lot to me.

More personal responsibility is exactly what I'm arguing for, background checks need to be universal and far more comprehensive, and sellers need to face serious jail time for noncompliance. Which is something that even about 70% of conservatives agree on. Impossible to hold mass shooters accountable after they've already killed 3+ people and committed suicide, nor can accountability after the fact undo any of the damage they've done for the ones that survive.

Pretending that the most successful mob was "democratically elected" is the never-ending startup slogan of America.

"Most successful mob" is an awfully stupid way of saying "majority," but that's precisely how democracy works. Granted, a two-party system is far too close to oligarchy for my tastes, but the only system even more dysfunctional than that is the one you argue in favor of, dictatorship installed by a rabid minority.

 

[TraderPatTX]

You should ask your english teacher about the evolution of language.
Shakespear spoke english too, the language he spoke is long dead.

Americans speak their own bastardized english, and have their own spelling because they were deemed too dumb to learn the original spelling.

Apparently we ain't too dumb to understand commas.

Judges aren't paid to disagree.

Different judges come to different conclusions. It even happens on the same court.

Public decency?

Then shut your virgin eyes and stop responding to me. Nobody is forcing you to be here.

Post automatically merged: Feb 17, 2023

More personal responsibility is exactly what I'm arguing for, background checks need to be universal and far more comprehensive, and sellers need to face serious jail time for noncompliance. Which is something that even about 70% of conservatives agree on. Impossible to hold mass shooters accountable after they've already killed 3+ people and committed suicide, nor can accountability after the fact undo any of the damage they've done for the ones that survive.

Law enforcement is not there to prevent crime. They are not even obligated to protect you. What you want is for people to be arrested, tried and convicted of thought crimes. That's not how things work around here, son.

"Most successful mob" is an awfully stupid way of saying "majority," but that's precisely how democracy works. Granted, a two-party system is far too close to oligarchy for my tastes, but the only system even more dysfunctional than that is the one you argue in favor of, dictatorship installed by a rabid minority.

You keep saying that everybody you disagree with wants to install a dictatorship, but you never provide any examples of anybody actually saying that. It's time to put up or shut up, because all that you are doing is projecting.

Post automatically merged: Feb 17, 2023

It's quite obvious the point is that there has to be some line drawn. I'm sure even the most rabid gun nut here would agree we can't give the general public access to RPGs and missile-equipped drones. Hanafuda is nostalgic for a time when kids could bring rifles to school, but that was also a time when the US had an abundance of mental hospitals and no internet radicalization pipelines.

Are you saying that mass shootings are perpetuated by crazy people? I'm always told it's the gun's fault, especially if it's one of those scary looking AR-15's that makes soy boys crap their pants when they see a picture of one.

We need solutions for the problems of our present reality, not for the childish Chuck Norris-esque fantasies playing out in conservatives' heads.

You want a dictator to take guns away from non-crazy people who don't commit crimes instead of advocating for mental health programs for the crazy people. You are not about solutions.

Besides, they've already demonstrated that they'd be in full support of unelected authoritarians/fascists taking over government anyway. Totally invalidates the argument that they need fully automatic weapons to fight against such an outcome.

Our government has already been taken over by unelected authoritarians/fascists. They are called the bureaucracy. This happens decades ago. Where have you been?

 

[Xzi]

Law enforcement is not there to prevent crime. They are not even obligated to protect you.

So we fix it or get rid of it and replace it with something better. We're not talking about the police anyway, background checks go through the FBI, and they have already prevented plenty of crime.

What you want is for people to be arrested, tried and convicted of thought crimes.

No, I want to prevent people with a history of mental illness or criminal activity from being able to purchase guns, ESPECIALLY when that criminal activity includes previous weapons charges, as was the case for the Michigan college shooter.

You keep saying that everybody you disagree with wants to install a dictatorship, but you never provide any examples of anybody actually saying that.

Tabzer in no uncertain terms stated he's not in favor of democracy, and we've been in enough arguments that I have a clear picture of his political leanings. Let's just say he was in full support of all the criminal activity that occurred on January 6th.

 

[TraderPatTX]

So we fix it or get rid of it and replace it with something better. We're not talking about the police anyway, background checks go through the FBI, and they have already prevented plenty of crime.

The FBI is the federal police. They also, do not prevent crime. They investigate crimes. You keep saying "replace it with something better", but you never say with what, because we all know what you want to do and it requires a dictator to do it, but you can't figure out how to say is and still call me an authoritarian fascist.

No, I want to prevent people with a history of mental illness or criminal activity from being able to purchase guns, ESPECIALLY when that criminal activity includes previous weapons charges, as was the case for the Michigan college shooter.

It is already illegal for people with a history of mental problems and felons from buying guns. The weapons charges for the Michigan shooter were dismissed if I remember correctly, so there wouldn't be a record of it. Blame DA's for not prosecuting criminals and being soft on crime. The right has been talking about this for years and years now. Where have you been? It's like you don't pay attention to what is going on.

Tabzer in no uncertain terms stated he's not in favor of democracy, and we've been in enough arguments that I have a clear picture of his political leanings. Let's just say he was in full support of all the criminal activity that occurred on January 6th.

I'm also not in favor of a democracy. We live in a republic and I'd like to keep it that way. Being of support of the January 6th protest is completely different than being in support of the criminality that took place. I'm sure you are in full support of the BLM protests even though more than 30 people were murdered and black businesses and neighborhoods were burned to the ground. Should I make the claim that you support the murder of black people and the destruction of their lives, because it does seem that way.

 

[Xzi]

The FBI is the federal police. They also, do not prevent crime.

Background checks have prevented crime. There is no disputing this. Expanding them and making them more comprehensive would prevent more crime, and a vast majority of Americans agree are in favor of that. You're an extreme outlier.

The weapons charges for the Michigan shooter were dismissed if I remember correctly

Incorrect, they were reduced from felony to misdemeanor, but any weapons-related charge should still be enough to prevent the purchase of more guns going forward.

I'm also not in favor of a democracy.

Fascists of a feather flock together, I'm shocked. /s

 

[TraderPatTX]

Background checks have prevented crime. There is no disputing this. Expanding them and making them more comprehensive would prevent more crime, and a vast majority of Americans agree are in favor of that. You're an extreme outlier.

This is how I know you are against the 4th amendment. And I don't mind being an extreme outlier. The Founders were also extreme outliers. I'm in good company.

Incorrect, they were reduced from felony to misdemeanor, but any weapons-related charge should still be enough to prevent the purchase of more guns going forward.

The law says only felons cannot buy guns. That is why his charges were reduced to a misdemeanor. DA's like that are the reason people should be armed. Letting criminals loose on an unsuspecting populace should be cause for removal. I bet Democrat Rep. Angie Craig has been made a believer in putting criminals in jail after finding out her attacker had been arrested for violent crimes 12 times prior to her attack.

Fascists of a feather flock together, I'm shocked. /s

Sure, HItler and Mussolini were huge fans of republics.

 

[Xzi]

This is how I know you are against the 4th amendment.

The fuck does this have to do with the 4th amendment? The purpose of background checks is to catch previous convictions which would've been subject to due process already. Only criminals would be intent on avoiding a background check when purchasing guns.

The law says only felons cannot buy guns.

Right, I'm saying the law needs to be changed to include misdemeanor weapons convictions as well. Giving someone who has already been found to be irresponsible with guns a second chance to buy them is the very definition of insanity.

Sure, HItler and Mussolini were huge fans of republics.

They wouldn't give a shit what you call it as long as they were able to seize control of it through violent means. People like you want to make that easy.

 

[TraderPatTX]

The fuck does this have to do with the 4th amendment? The purpose of background checks is to catch previous convictions which would've been subject to due process already. Only criminals would be intent on avoiding a background check when purchasing guns.

Or people who value their privacy and don't wish to give an authoritarian government their info. But we all know you love authoritarians.

Right, I'm saying the law needs to be changed to include misdemeanor weapons convictions as well. Giving someone who has already been found to be irresponsible with guns a second chance to buy them is the very definition of insanity.

Possessing brass knuckles is a misdemeanor weapons charge. What does that have to do with owning a firearm?

They wouldn't give a shit what you call it as long as they were able to seize control of it through violent means. People like you want to make that easy.

Our republic was founded through violent means. Know your history or just shut up already. I'm getting tired of embarrassing you on every thread.

 

[Xzi]

Or people who value their privacy and don't wish to give an authoritarian government their info. But we all know you love authoritarians.

I wouldn't be bragging about illegally circumventing a background check on the internet, but you do you.

Possessing brass knuckles is a misdemeanor weapons charge. What does that have to do with owning a firearm?

I'm referring specifically to gun-related charges, that should've been obvious.

Our republic was founded through violent means.

Violence is not and has never been how we choose our representatives though, dipshit, and you know it. When you have to resort to being this obnoxiously obtuse, you've already lost the argument.

 

[tabzer]

More personal responsibility is exactly what I'm arguing for, background checks need to be

Let me stop you right there. Personal responsibility is the opposite enforcing background checks. Not that I have a personal vendetta against background checks, but something is f'd up in your noggin if I mention "personal responsibility" and that is your go to.

"Most successful mob" is an awfully stupid way of saying "majority," but that's precisely how democracy works.

Majority of what? If you are trying to call on me, try offering a more concise label.

 

[Xzi]

Let me stop you right there. Personal responsibility is the opposite enforcing background checks.

So people aren't individually responsible for the crimes they've committed which would/should prevent them from purchasing a gun? Wut.

Majority of what?

Majority of voters. Sad that one of our two parties actively tries to prevent more of the populace from voting, but nobody is requiring them to cling to outdated and unpopular policies/positions. They do that of their own volition.