Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[Gig em Aggies]

Justice Clarence Thomas is not happy.
Clarence Thomas rips high court's decision not to hear case challenging California gun law: Second Amendment is 'disfavored right'

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the high court after the justices denied a petition to hear a case challenging a California law requiring a 10-day waiting period for gun sales, saying the Second Amendment is a “disfavored right” and the Supreme Court’s “constitutional orphan.”

Sounds like he's more than ready to slap down these abuses at the state level.

Can Texas help I mean we can lay the law down on California Texas Style if need be.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Justice Clarence Thomas is not happy.
Clarence Thomas rips high court's decision not to hear case challenging California gun law: Second Amendment is 'disfavored right'

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the high court after the justices denied a petition to hear a case challenging a California law requiring a 10-day waiting period for gun sales, saying the Second Amendment is a “disfavored right” and the Supreme Court’s “constitutional orphan.”

Sounds like he's more than ready to slap down these abuses at the state level.

Holy shit just read that in full... and you are absolutely right, that man very bluntly just made his position on the subject very clear.

[Zyr and Pony]

On Wikipedia and college papers, because I don't feel like editing my last post again:

http://www.gearfire.net/4-ways-wikipedia-needing-cite/

You can use Wikipedia for research and for finding sources to cite, just not as a cite. Don't like it? too bad.

[Gig em Aggies]

Once again, I clearly did. You just choose to ignore it cause you didn't like it.

You do realize, that all those people are still in fucking office, right?

So it doesn't fucking matter when the interviews were taken, as the original point still stands as they are still trying to enact their draconian laws into existence.

What office does Holder hold? Because far as I can tell, he's not in office

And can you link to any bills they proposed in the past, say, five years (to overlap with the Obama years), that would do what they advocated in the videos in the 90s?

If not, then they're not actively trying to do that.

And no, you didn't. Gig em did, however.

1. When is that from? At least four years ago, according to the comments.
2. One politician AGAIN. Hardly a majority AGAIN



These videos don't showe a majority as you keep insisting they do, just three politicians saying something like that. Own up to your bullshit now.

Pot meet kettle.

I find it funny that your bitching about him using actual sources from the year 1995 and from YouTube videos funny because you stated you use wiki which.....guess what can be fucking altered on a dime and anyone can write anything in them even professors from accredited 4 year universities won't let you use wiki as a reliable source in a college paper.

And extensively cites its own sources. If you don't like Wikipedia, then just check the sources it cites (plus they have strict policies that are routinely enforced, including on sourcing, or can hyou show me where Wikipedia is citing shit or making shit up, sans citation needed tag, which lets you know to take a claim with a grain of salt?. Also, unless you can show that they've been proposing bills like that (or even advocating that) lately (five years), the relevance is minimal. The gun debate changed radically post-Columbine, IIRC, and Columbine was in 1999. It hasn't stopped changing since then. Prove otherwise.

BTW, not a youtube video from 95, but a poll from yesterday: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de ... aseID=2521

And the historical trend: http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

You're in the minority, now, and i wouldn't be surprised if this leads to new regulations in the next ten years simply because Millenials and Gen Z are getting loud post Stoneman Douglas.

And the Confederacy also declared independence. What's your point?

You can't cite the revolutionary war's reasons for happening, while ignoring the civil war's very similar reasons for happening (protecting what they think is their rights)

Edit: technically, the confederacy also FOUNDED a nation, with a constitution and everything. So you sound ridiculous



Honest question, what does it have to do with the topic at hand?

And you never responded to my response to your ancient videos, noting that I said a MAJORITY of gun control advocates don't support banning all guns, so save your snark.

I didn't realize I needed to conform to your acceptable list of historical wars to list, I merely chose the most relevant and important instance of rebelling against a govt over things people didn't like, and yes I can cite just the revolutionary war.

I didn't realize you were the sole arbiter of what rebellions on American soil count when talking about rebellions on American soil and rebelions over loss of percieved rights.

Okay then, explain why the Civil war isn't relevant, but the Revolutionary war is.[/quote]

Yes I did and I actually have a history of knowing what the fuck I'm talking about on here specifically this thread and the last gun control thread.

[Internationalist Bastard]

On Wikipedia and college papers, because I don't feel like editing my last post again:

http://www.gearfire.net/4-ways-wikipedia-needing-cite/

You can use Wikipedia for research and for finding sources to cite, just not as a cite. Don't like it? too bad.

Eh we all do it anyway

[Grinning Dragon]

Justice Clarence Thomas is not happy.
Clarence Thomas rips high court's decision not to hear case challenging California gun law: Second Amendment is 'disfavored right'


Sounds like he's more than ready to slap down these abuses at the state level.

Holy shit just read that in full... and you are absolutely right, that man very bluntly just made his position on the subject very clear.

It's almost as if you can feel his disgust, frustration and over all being miffed that these states are getting away with such abuses when they should be put back into their place.

[Paddy O Fernature]

A Bunch Of Stuff that is breaking the forum when I copy it in full....

Yes I did and I actually have a history of knowing what the fuck I'm talking about on here specifically this thread and the last gun control thread.

Same.

Also, you literally are asking me to post what bills Sen Dianne Feinstein has proposed that are anti gun.

Dianne Feinstein...

You do fucking know who that is, right?

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of you're post, as my head physically cannot take any more of this idiocy.

[Telconi]

Justice Clarence Thomas is not happy.
Clarence Thomas rips high court's decision not to hear case challenging California gun law: Second Amendment is 'disfavored right'


Sounds like he's more than ready to slap down these abuses at the state level.

Can Texas help I mean we can lay the law down on California Texas Style if need be.

Please help. Just remember those of us in the valley are innocent victims.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Holy shit just read that in full... and you are absolutely right, that man very bluntly just made his position on the subject very clear.

It's almost as if you can feel his disgust, frustration and over all being miffed that these states are getting away with such abuses when they should be put back into their place.

Feel it is an understatement. I literally think that if he could get away with it, he would physically bitch slap the lower courts back in line.

[Zyr and Pony]

What office does Holder hold? Because far as I can tell, he's not in office

And can you link to any bills they proposed in the past, say, five years (to overlap with the Obama years), that would do what they advocated in the videos in the 90s?

If not, then they're not actively trying to do that.

And no, you didn't. Gig em did, however.



Pot meet kettle.

I find it funny that your bitching about him using actual sources from the year 1995 and from YouTube videos funny because you stated you use wiki which.....guess what can be fucking altered on a dime and anyone can write anything in them even professors from accredited 4 year universities won't let you use wiki as a reliable source in a college paper.

And extensively cites its own sources. If you don't like Wikipedia, then just check the sources it cites (plus they have strict policies that are routinely enforced, including on sourcing, or can hyou show me where Wikipedia is citing shit or making shit up, sans citation needed tag, which lets you know to take a claim with a grain of salt?. Also, unless you can show that they've been proposing bills like that (or even advocating that) lately (five years), the relevance is minimal. The gun debate changed radically post-Columbine, IIRC, and Columbine was in 1999. It hasn't stopped changing since then. Prove otherwise.

BTW, not a youtube video from 95, but a poll from yesterday: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de ... aseID=2521

And the historical trend: http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

You're in the minority, now, and i wouldn't be surprised if this leads to new regulations in the next ten years simply because Millenials and Gen Z are getting loud post Stoneman Douglas.

I didn't realize I needed to conform to your acceptable list of historical wars to list, I merely chose the most relevant and important instance of rebelling against a govt over things people didn't like, and yes I can cite just the revolutionary war.

I didn't realize you were the sole arbiter of what rebellions on American soil count when talking about rebellions on American soil and rebelions over loss of percieved rights.

Okay then, explain why the Civil war isn't relevant, but the Revolutionary war is.

[Grinning Dragon]

Once again, I clearly did. You just choose to ignore it cause you didn't like it.

You do realize, that all those people are still in fucking office, right?

So it doesn't fucking matter when the interviews were taken, as the original point still stands as they are still trying to enact their draconian laws into existence.

What office does Holder hold? Because far as I can tell, he's not in office

And can you link to any bills they proposed in the past, say, five years (to overlap with the Obama years), that would do what they advocated in the videos in the 90s?

If not, then they're not actively trying to do that.

And no, you didn't. Gig em did, however.

1. When is that from? At least four years ago, according to the comments.
2. One politician AGAIN. Hardly a majority AGAIN



These videos don't showe a majority as you keep insisting they do, just three politicians saying something like that. Own up to your bullshit now.

Pot meet kettle.

I find it funny that your bitching about him using actual sources from the year 1995 and from YouTube videos funny because you stated you use wiki which.....guess what can be fucking altered on a dime and anyone can write anything in them even professors from accredited 4 year universities won't let you use wiki as a reliable source in a college paper.

And extensively cites its own sources. If you don't like Wikipedia, then just check the sources it cites (plus they have strict policies that are routinely enforced, including on sourcing, or can hyou show me where Wikipedia is citing shit or making shit up, sans citation needed tag, which lets you know to take a claim with a grain of salt?. Also, unless you can show that they've been proposing bills like that (or even advocating that) lately (five years), the relevance is minimal. The gun debate changed radically post-Columbine, IIRC, and Columbine was in 1999. It hasn't stopped changing since then. Prove otherwise.

BTW, not a youtube video from 95, but a poll from yesterday: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de ... aseID=2521

And the historical trend: http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

You're in the minority, now, and i wouldn't be surprised if this leads to new regulations in the next ten years simply because Millenials and Gen Z are getting loud post Stoneman Douglas.

And the Confederacy also declared independence. What's your point?

You can't cite the revolutionary war's reasons for happening, while ignoring the civil war's very similar reasons for happening (protecting what they think is their rights)

Edit: technically, the confederacy also FOUNDED a nation, with a constitution and everything. So you sound ridiculous



Honest question, what does it have to do with the topic at hand?

And you never responded to my response to your ancient videos, noting that I said a MAJORITY of gun control advocates don't support banning all guns, so save your snark.

I didn't realize I needed to conform to your acceptable list of historical wars to list, I merely chose the most relevant and important instance of rebelling against a govt over things people didn't like, and yes I can cite just the revolutionary war.

I didn't realize you were the sole arbiter of what rebellions on American soil count when talking about rebellions on American soil and rebelions over loss of percieved rights.

Okay then, explain why the Civil war isn't relevant, but the Revolutionary war is.[/quote]

I don't need to explain anything, I chose one, if you don't like it, then that is on you. With that, I am ending this thread jack and moved on.

[Zyr and Pony]

What office does Holder hold? Because far as I can tell, he's not in office

And can you link to any bills they proposed in the past, say, five years (to overlap with the Obama years), that would do what they advocated in the videos in the 90s?

If not, then they're not actively trying to do that.

And no, you didn't. Gig em did, however.



Pot meet kettle.

I find it funny that your bitching about him using actual sources from the year 1995 and from YouTube videos funny because you stated you use wiki which.....guess what can be fucking altered on a dime and anyone can write anything in them even professors from accredited 4 year universities won't let you use wiki as a reliable source in a college paper.

And extensively cites its own sources. If you don't like Wikipedia, then just check the sources it cites (plus they have strict policies that are routinely enforced, including on sourcing, or can hyou show me where Wikipedia is citing shit or making shit up, sans citation needed tag, which lets you know to take a claim with a grain of salt?. Also, unless you can show that they've been proposing bills like that (or even advocating that) lately (five years), the relevance is minimal. The gun debate changed radically post-Columbine, IIRC, and Columbine was in 1999. It hasn't stopped changing since then. Prove otherwise.

BTW, not a youtube video from 95, but a poll from yesterday: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de ... aseID=2521

And the historical trend: http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

You're in the minority, now, and i wouldn't be surprised if this leads to new regulations in the next ten years simply because Millenials and Gen Z are getting loud post Stoneman Douglas.

I didn't realize I needed to conform to your acceptable list of historical wars to list, I merely chose the most relevant and important instance of rebelling against a govt over things people didn't like, and yes I can cite just the revolutionary war.

I didn't realize you were the sole arbiter of what rebellions on American soil count when talking about rebellions on American soil and rebelions over loss of percieved rights.

Okay then, explain why the Civil war isn't relevant, but the Revolutionary war is.

I don't need to explain anything, I chose one, if you don't like it, then that is on you. With that, I am ending this thread jack and moved on.[/quote]

Fine by me. Show that Feinstein has proposed anti-gun laws or advicated anti-gun positions like she did in 1995 to prove your point

BTW, I didn't dislike your claim. I just compared the civil war with the revolution, in terms of relevance, and you didn't like it so you gave excuses for why you ignored it. But as you said, threadjack ended.

[Zyr and Pony]

Such great taste from some on the right, trying to discredit the gun control calls from survivors

edit: downplayed the blame as it was too extreme. Apologies

[Paddy O Fernature]

Just for you Z&P, as you are still breaking quotes left and right.

Next time, do you're own research.

[Zyr and Pony]

Just for you Z&P, as you are still breaking quotes left and right.

LMGFY? Really? You're asking me to do the research for you byh providing a google page to dig through instead of direct links? Burden of proof is on you, not me, as you made the claim. Cite your sources, or admit you have none. I'm not digging through that.

Hell, how about this? i looked through the page you provided, and found nothing from the past five years. Ergo, she hasn't posted any such anti-gun legislation in the last five years near as I can tell.

Plus that was one quote chain that got messed up and continually requoted, that you quoted without fixing as well, not me breaking them left and right. Please don't claim things like that.

Edit: read this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

[Washington Resistance Army]

Just for you Z&P, as you are still breaking quotes left and right.

LMGFY? Really? You're asking me to do the research for you byh providing a google page to dig through instead of direct links? Burden of proof is on you, not me, as you made the claim. Cite your sources, or admit you have none. I'm not digging through that.

Hell, how about this? i looked through the page you provided, and found nothing from the past five years. Ergo, she hasn't posted any such anti-gun legislation in the last five years near as I can tell.

Plus that was one quote chain that got messed up and continually requoted, that you quoted without fixing as well, not me breaking them left and right. Please don't claim things like that.

Edit: read this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Feinstein literally proposes a new ban in the senate every year lol

[Grinning Dragon]

Just for you Z&P, as you are still breaking quotes left and right.

LMGFY? Really? You're asking me to do the research for you byh providing a google page to dig through instead of direct links? Burden of proof is on you, not me, as you made the claim. Cite your sources, or admit you have none. I'm not digging through that.

Hell, how about this? i looked through the page you provided, and found nothing from the past five years. Ergo, she hasn't posted any such anti-gun legislation in the last five years near as I can tell.

Plus that was one quote chain that got messed up and continually requoted, that you quoted without fixing as well, not me breaking them left and right. Please don't claim things like that.

Edit: read this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

HUH, November 8, 2017 seems pretty recent

[Paddy O Fernature]

Just for you Z&P, as you are still breaking quotes left and right.

LMGFY? Really? You're asking me to do the research for you byh providing a google page to dig through instead of direct links? Burden of proof is on you, not me, as you made the claim. Cite your sources, or admit you have none. I'm not digging through that.

Hell, how about this? i looked through the page you provided, and found nothing from the past five years. Ergo, she hasn't posted any such anti-gun legislation in the last five years near as I can tell.

Plus that was one quote chain that got messed up and continually requoted, that you quoted without fixing as well, not me breaking them left and right. Please don't claim things like that.

Edit: read this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Once again, I very much doubt that you read anything on the page linked to you. If you had, you would have noticed that the overwhelming majority of everything on that page is a story about her trying to ban one thing or another or trying to push for her AWB 2.0 over and over and over again. I wasn't trying to link to any one source, as this shrill of a woman is literally the poster child of the anti gun lobby on capital hill and has spent her entire career being an absolute PITA of the 2A, which was the point I was trying to make that you oh so clearly missed by a grid square.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Kennedy is probably going to retire this year. It’s going to be really funny when trump appoints his second justice.

Oh yeah! I can already hear the screams from the left.

Mm, yes. Obama got two. Fingers crossed for three for Trump.

[Zyr and Pony]

LMGFY? Really? You're asking me to do the research for you byh providing a google page to dig through instead of direct links? Burden of proof is on you, not me, as you made the claim. Cite your sources, or admit you have none. I'm not digging through that.

Hell, how about this? i looked through the page you provided, and found nothing from the past five years. Ergo, she hasn't posted any such anti-gun legislation in the last five years near as I can tell.

Plus that was one quote chain that got messed up and continually requoted, that you quoted without fixing as well, not me breaking them left and right. Please don't claim things like that.

Edit: read this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Once again, I very much doubt that you read anything on the page linked to you. If you had, you would have noticed that the overwhelming majority of everything on that page is a story about her trying to ban one thing or another or trying to push for her AWB 2.0 over and over and over again. I wasn't trying to link to any one source, as this shrill of a woman is literally the poster child of the anti gun lobby on capital hill and has spent her entire career being an absolute PITA of the 2A, which was the point I was trying to make that you oh so clearly missed by a grid square.

Once again. Burden of proof is on you. If you can't cite specific laws that you insist she's proposing, then I have no reason to believe you, Burden of proof is on you.

Others above you did, and kudos to them, but again, how much proof is there that the majority of gun control advocates feel the same way she does? Sure she's influential (for now, she'll be gone soon I hope), but that doesn't mean that even a small minority agree with her on this one issue. Maybe on others but not this one. Until i see proof otherwise, I choose to assume her beliefs about guns are in the fringe minority. And yes, one can be in the fringe on one issue while more moderate on every other one. And/or ignored on one issue while having major influence on others.

[Grinning Dragon]

Once again, I very much doubt that you read anything on the page linked to you. If you had, you would have noticed that the overwhelming majority of everything on that page is a story about her trying to ban one thing or another or trying to push for her AWB 2.0 over and over and over again. I wasn't trying to link to any one source, as this shrill of a woman is literally the poster child of the anti gun lobby on capital hill and has spent her entire career being an absolute PITA of the 2A, which was the point I was trying to make that you oh so clearly missed by a grid square.

Once again. Burden of proof is on you. If you can't cite specific laws that you insist she's proposing, then I have no reason to believe you, Burden of proof is on you.

Others above you did, and kudos to them, but again, how much proof is there that the majority of gun control advocates feel the same way she does? Sure she's influential (for now, she'll be gone soon I hope), but that doesn't mean that even a small minority agree with her on this one issue. Maybe on others but not this one. Until i see proof otherwise, I choose to assume her beliefs about guns are in the fringe minority. And yes, one can be in the fringe on one issue while more moderate on every other one. And/or ignored on one issue while having major influence on others.

25 co-sponsors and everyone of those co sponsors like them some gun bans.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Once again, I very much doubt that you read anything on the page linked to you. If you had, you would have noticed that the overwhelming majority of everything on that page is a story about her trying to ban one thing or another or trying to push for her AWB 2.0 over and over and over again. I wasn't trying to link to any one source, as this shrill of a woman is literally the poster child of the anti gun lobby on capital hill and has spent her entire career being an absolute PITA of the 2A, which was the point I was trying to make that you oh so clearly missed by a grid square.

Once again. Burden of proof is on you. If you can't cite specific laws that you insist she's proposing, then I have no reason to believe you, Burden of proof is on you..

Next time, try comprehending a little harder when people link credible sources to you over and over. This little game you are trying to play is getting old fast. And with that, I'm done.

[Zyr and Pony]

Once again. Burden of proof is on you. If you can't cite specific laws that you insist she's proposing, then I have no reason to believe you, Burden of proof is on you.

Others above you did, and kudos to them, but again, how much proof is there that the majority of gun control advocates feel the same way she does? Sure she's influential (for now, she'll be gone soon I hope), but that doesn't mean that even a small minority agree with her on this one issue. Maybe on others but not this one. Until i see proof otherwise, I choose to assume her beliefs about guns are in the fringe minority. And yes, one can be in the fringe on one issue while more moderate on every other one. And/or ignored on one issue while having major influence on others.

25 co-sponsors and everyone of those co sponsors like them some gun bans.

Or they know it will never pass, and want to be signalling support for gun control? Politics is a cynical game, you know, and that's always a possibility. In fact I think that's more likely than all of them actually supporting a gun ban.

According to ontheissues.org Kamala Harris, my favorite senator, does not seem to be in favor of a full gun ban, just more regulation on the issue, and I assume the story is the same for the other co-sponsors (i've got a headache from your posts, so I don't want to dig too much deeper).

And I don't just mean politicians when I talk about gun control advocates. Can you show that the various PACs and other organizations that support gun control want to ban all guns? Because I notice a lack of sources about them wanting to ban all guns, and they would contribute to any majority of gun control advocates' stances.

[Zyr and Pony]

Once again. Burden of proof is on you. If you can't cite specific laws that you insist she's proposing, then I have no reason to believe you, Burden of proof is on you..

Next time, try comprehending a little harder when people link credible sources to you over and over. This little game you are trying to play is getting old fast. And with that, I'm done.

Pot meet kettle.

I acknowledged those sources, and have linked myu own credible sources that you and your allies refuse to acknowledge as well, so...

Edit: Translation: I cannot respond to your well sourced arguments, and don't understand the burden of proof, so I'm taking my ball and going home

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Justice Clarence Thomas is not happy.
Clarence Thomas rips high court's decision not to hear case challenging California gun law: Second Amendment is 'disfavored right'

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the high court after the justices denied a petition to hear a case challenging a California law requiring a 10-day waiting period for gun sales, saying the Second Amendment is a “disfavored right” and the Supreme Court’s “constitutional orphan.”

Sounds like he's more than ready to slap down these abuses at the state level.

“Constitutional orphan” is a weird phrase to say about the 2A since it’s had two landmark cases just in the past decade with Heller and McDonald. If we’re gonna talk about “constitutional orphans” we should talk about 3A and 9A since they’re the least litigated amendments, at least in the Bill of Rights.