Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Plzen]

I hope that doesn't happen.

In my opinion, if the Democrats put up another vaguely inoffensive social liberal with an elite image, they might as well hand Trump the 2020 elections because they're not winning it.

But then again, history shows how frequently leaders choose to stay leaders of a sinking ship instead of letting someone else save it.

[The Two Jerseys]

Why do you people hate vegetables? Gimme romaine, spinach, red onion, tomatoes, carrots, and an oil and vinegar dressing. Hold all the extra carbs and *gag* ranch dressing.

Who the hell likes ranch dressing?

Real Americans.

[Diopolis]

I hope that doesn't happen.

In my opinion, if the Democrats put up another vaguely inoffensive social liberal with an elite image, they might as well hand Trump the 2020 elections because they're not winning it.

But then again, history shows how frequently leaders choose to stay leaders of a sinking ship instead of letting someone else save it.

They’ll put up a scandal haunted, senile moderate and try to reassure their base by running to the left on social issues.
Which is about the dumbest thing they could do, but hey, they’re democrats.

[West Leas Oros 2]

In my opinion, if the Democrats put up another vaguely inoffensive social liberal with an elite image, they might as well hand Trump the 2020 elections because they're not winning it.

But then again, history shows how frequently leaders choose to stay leaders of a sinking ship instead of letting someone else save it.

They’ll put up a scandal haunted, senile moderate and try to reassure their base by running to the left on social issues.
Which is about the dumbest thing they could do, but hey, they’re democrats.

Democrats are good at setting up stooges.

[Kernen]

Who the hell likes ranch dressing?

Real Americans.

We should use our 2nd Amendment rights to rid the nation of Ranch and the Ranchophiles. Ranch dressing is an assault on our right to be free of bad food!

[Pax Nerdvana]

Who the hell likes ranch dressing?

Real Americans.

I love ranch myself.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Real Americans.

We should use our 2nd Amendment rights to rid the nation of Ranch and the Ranchophiles. Ranch dressing is an assault on our right to be free of bad food!

Hell yeah we're going to take your Ranch Dressing.

[The Two Jerseys]

We should use our 2nd Amendment rights to rid the nation of Ranch and the Ranchophiles. Ranch dressing is an assault on our right to be free of bad food!

Hell yeah we're going to take your Ranch Dressing.

Ranchophobes do not get to tell me how to eat my food. And if they try, I will meet them at the door with a gun. That is insane!

[Kernen]

Hell yeah we're going to take your Ranch Dressing.

Ranchophobes do not get to tell me how to eat my food. And if they try, I will meet them at the door with a gun. That is insane!

The Constitution never mentioned ranch dressing, and there is no way the Founders could have conceived of such an advanced version of their food. You do not have a right to a quasi-dairy product who's only purpose is to make you feel big and satisfied with your salad.

[The Two Jerseys]

Ranchophobes do not get to tell me how to eat my food. And if they try, I will meet them at the door with a gun. That is insane!

The Constitution never mentioned ranch dressing, and there is no way the Founders could have conceived of such an advanced version of their food. You do not have a right to a quasi-dairy product who's only purpose is to make you feel big and satisfied with your salad.

The Constitution says "the right of the people", not "the right of the government". We should be able to eat the same rations that the military does!

[Kernen]

The Constitution never mentioned ranch dressing, and there is no way the Founders could have conceived of such an advanced version of their food. You do not have a right to a quasi-dairy product who's only purpose is to make you feel big and satisfied with your salad.

The Constitution says "the right of the people", not "the right of the government". We should be able to eat the same rations that the military does!

[Grinning Dragon]

Quite fitting of those pols who support red flag laws.

New Hampshire Democrats compared to Nazis at House committee vote on firearms bill

[Plzen]

-snip-

...National Socialist Germany definitely didn't use the Communist red-and-yellow scheme.

Not to mention, using totalitarian regimes as an argument against gun control is an intriguing argument to make, because many of those totalitarian regimes demonstrate just how ineffective being armed is at actually putting an end to totalitarianism. After all, Stalin's 1937 Great Purge fell extremely heavily on the Red Army, with nearly its entire leadership quietly led away to be shot or interned... if something could've saved all those people and stop Stalin's purges, "more guns" certainly wouldn't be it.

[Telconi]

-snip-

...National Socialist Germany definitely didn't use the Communist red-and-yellow scheme.

Not to mention, using totalitarian regimes as an argument against gun control is an intriguing argument to make, because many of those totalitarian regimes demonstrate just how ineffective being armed is at actually putting an end to totalitarianism. After all, Stalin's 1937 Great Purge fell extremely heavily on the Red Army, with nearly its entire leadership quietly led away to be shot or interned... if something could've saved all those people and stop Stalin's purges, "more guns" certainly wouldn't be it.

It's not necessary for a right to prevent tyranny for the attacking of that right to be tyranny.

[Plzen]

It's not necessary for a right to prevent tyranny for the attacking of that right to be tyranny.

Fair enough. That raises the question, then, of what even is the point of that poster. "Look, these people we don't like did X, we shouldn't do X" is basically a textbook example of how ad hominem works.

[Ors Might]

It's not necessary for a right to prevent tyranny for the attacking of that right to be tyranny.

Fair enough. That raises the question, then, of what even is the point of that poster. "Look, these people we don't like did X, we shouldn't do X" is basically a textbook example of how ad hominem works.

More so it’s “hey these people are bad because they did x and y. Lets not do x and y.”

[Grinning Dragon]

It's not necessary for a right to prevent tyranny for the attacking of that right to be tyranny.

Fair enough. That raises the question, then, of what even is the point of that poster. "Look, these people we don't like did X, we shouldn't do X" is basically a textbook example of how ad hominem works.

Any different than what anti gun cunts label pro gun folks?
Fact is red flag laws are shit, have always been shit and will continue to be shit, and those pols who support said unconstitutional ideas/laws are shit as well and are really no different than those piece of shit dictators those symbols on that poster represent.

[Telconi]

It's not necessary for a right to prevent tyranny for the attacking of that right to be tyranny.

Fair enough. That raises the question, then, of what even is the point of that poster. "Look, these people we don't like did X, we shouldn't do X" is basically a textbook example of how ad hominem works.

It's a poster, not a debate argument.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Why do you people hate vegetables? Gimme romaine, spinach, red onion, tomatoes, carrots, and an oil and vinegar dressing. Hold all the extra carbs and *gag* ranch dressing.

Who the hell likes ranch dressing?

Me. Add mustard and makes a nifty pretzel-dip.

[Kernen]

Who the hell likes ranch dressing?

Me. Add mustard and makes a nifty pretzel-dip.

Just stick with the mustard.

[Deacarsia]

Me. Add mustard and makes a nifty pretzel-dip.

Just stick with the mustard.

Yuck! No way!

[Deacarsia]

Fair enough. That raises the question, then, of what even is the point of that poster. "Look, these people we don't like did X, we shouldn't do X" is basically a textbook example of how ad hominem works.

Any different than what anti gun @$#!s label pro gun folks?
Fact is red flag laws are shit, have always been shit and will continue to be shit, and those pols who support said unconstitutional ideas/laws are shit as well and are really no different than those piece of shit dictators those symbols on that poster represent.

I agree.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Quite fitting of those pols who support red flag laws.

(Image)

New Hampshire Democrats compared to Nazis at House committee vote on firearms bill

Gotta love the daily dose of McCarthyist Red-Baiting, now with a side of Godwin's Law.

[Asle Leopolka]

Buckle up, buckaroos: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... wsuit-from

The Supreme Court has refused to listen to the appeal of gunmaker Remington in the 2014 lawsuit brought forward by a survivor and families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

The refusal of the appeal means that the lawsuit — which alleges that Remington should have never sold to the public a weapon as dangerous as the AR-15 style rifle used in the shooting — can move forward to trial.

Remington, the nation's oldest gunmaker, was appealing the 4-3 decision passed down by the Connecticut Supreme Court in March, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that protects gunmakers from liability claims when criminal acts are carried out with their weapons.

Remington's Bushmaster XM-15 was used by 20-year-old Adam Lanza to murder 20 first graders and six educators at the elementary school.

Until now, the law had proven to be an airtight defense for gun manufacturers, causing lawsuits to be thrown out in similar situations, such as the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting in 2012.

BRB, gonna sue Chipotle because my brother became overweight from eating there every day.

[Kernen]

Buckle up, buckaroos: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... wsuit-from

The Supreme Court has refused to listen to the appeal of gunmaker Remington in the 2014 lawsuit brought forward by a survivor and families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

The refusal of the appeal means that the lawsuit — which alleges that Remington should have never sold to the public a weapon as dangerous as the AR-15 style rifle used in the shooting — can move forward to trial.

Remington, the nation's oldest gunmaker, was appealing the 4-3 decision passed down by the Connecticut Supreme Court in March, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that protects gunmakers from liability claims when criminal acts are carried out with their weapons.

Remington's Bushmaster XM-15 was used by 20-year-old Adam Lanza to murder 20 first graders and six educators at the elementary school.

Until now, the law had proven to be an airtight defense for gun manufacturers, causing lawsuits to be thrown out in similar situations, such as the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting in 2012.

BRB, gonna sue Chipotle because my brother became overweight from eating there every day.

You didnt read the briefs, didya. They're suing based on consumer advertising, not liability for wrongful death. Even assuming the manufacturers lose, all they have to do is change their advertising approach. It's likely that the Lawful Commerce Act doesn't actually protect against consumer protection claims based in advertising issues.

This could be expensive for Remington, but it probably wont tank them. And if it does, itll be because they did it to them like the tobacco companies did with the internal memos.