Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Themerlin]

Well I could ignore it. But why would I when you clearly are here to make posts attacking the NRA? And can the Constitution be amended? Of course. Out of over 11,000 attempts, they managed to do it 28 times. So it is possible. But would you go to Vegas and bet most of your money on those kinds of odds?

I ain't attacking anyone. Paranoid much?

I asked if anyone here is a fanboy of the NRA.

You obviously are and reacting in a typical fashion at that....

[Ghostpanther]

I ain't attacking anyone. Paranoid much?

I asked if anyone here is a fanboy of the NRA.

You obviously are and reacting in a typical fashion at that....

Why use the term fanboy? You do know why that term is used when describing anything in such fashion? if you had simply said, is anyone here a member of the NRA, then you would get a simple yes and why answer at the most.

fan·boy (făn′boi′)
n.
A boy or man who is ardently devoted to a single hobby or interest.

I am interested in what they stand for and I do enjoy their magazine. But I have other hobbies also. So I am not ardently devoted to them as my single hobby. :P

[Themerlin]

Why use the term fanboy? You do know why that term is used when describing anything in such fashion? if you had simply said, is anyone here a member of the NRA, then you would get a simple yes and why answer at the most.

fan·boy (făn′boi′)
n.
A boy or man who is ardently devoted to a single hobby or interest.

I am interested in what they stand for and I do enjoy their magazine. But I have other hobbies also. So I am not ardently devoted to them as my single hobby. :P

Strange ...

I get this for its definition, and in no way does it signify a single hobby....

fan·boy
ˈfanboi/
informal
noun
noun: fanboy; plural noun: fanboys; noun: fan-boy; plural noun: fan-boys

1.
a male fan, especially one who is obsessive about comics, music, movies, or science fiction.

verb
verb: fanboy; past tense: fanboyed; gerund or present participle: fanboying; past participle: fanboyed; 3rd person present: fanboys

1.
(of a male fan) behave in an obsessive or overexcited way.

Therefore you are technically a fanboy if you joined their "club"



You are describing a fanatical fanboy...

I am sure you are not....

[Ghostpanther]

Strange ...

I get this for its definition, and in no way does it signify a single hobby....

fan·boy
ˈfanboi/
informal
noun
noun: fanboy; plural noun: fanboys; noun: fan-boy; plural noun: fan-boys

1.
a male fan, especially one who is obsessive about comics, music, movies, or science fiction.

verb
verb: fanboy; past tense: fanboyed; gerund or present participle: fanboying; past participle: fanboyed; 3rd person present: fanboys

1.
(of a male fan) behave in an obsessive or overexcited way.

Therefore you are technically a fanboy if you joined their "club"

Na. I joined for the reasons I already stated. I am nether obsessed or overly excited about being a member. Now ether make some contributing input into the topic of this thread ( for or against is fine ), or be ignored.

[Deleted]

They won't understand the value of guns and self-defensive... I really wonder how they kill someone who invades their family home. Will they hope some words will do it?

[Shadowferal]

They won't understand the value of guns and self-defensive... I really wonder how they kill someone who invades their family home. Will they hope some words will do it?

Not exactly about killing so much as it's about defending.

[Ghostpanther]

Not exactly about killing so much as it's about defending.

So true. The goal is to stop the threat. Just so happens, the best way to ensure that happens is to aim for center mass. Easier target to hit, but does have the higher chance to be fatal.

[Themerlin]

Na. I joined for the reasons I already stated. I am nether obsessed or overly excited about being a member. Now ether make some contributing input into the topic of this thread ( for or against is fine ), or be ignored.

I was simply correcting you on your definition. I have no idea where you got it...

But I agree with you... I am done.

I'll pop back in once a while to see the fanboys.

[Deleted]

Not exactly about killing so much as it's about defending.

If you kill you defend the next possible victim.

[Ghostpanther]

If you kill you defend the next possible victim.

May be true in some cases. But my intent is still not to kill, but to stop. After I do stop the threat, if I wanted to kill the attacker, I would then walk up to them and put one shot to the head.

[Themerlin]

@Naadir we are like...neck to neck on posts.

Since I have so few, Ill consider you as competition in my pathetic way.

[Stormdash]

I ain't attacking anyone. Paranoid much?

I asked if anyone here is a fanboy of the NRA.

You obviously are and reacting in a typical fashion at that....

The initial question pretty much was like a signal flare that sh*tposting was to follow. Facts on the ground differ with the RL headcanon that is the NRA's "irrelevance". All the histrionic bibble of campaigning against 5-7 million Americans -- teachers, nurses, firefighters, cops, hunters, farmers -- as child-killers and terrorists has backfired into record gun sales after a year or more without them. It took about a week for the DNC's policy people to start trying to shift the rhetoric to "it's just the NRA's leadership, not the membership" but the damage was done; besides, the self-activated ground level cretins didn't get the message or care.

[Themerlin]

The initial question pretty much was like a signal flare that sh*tposting was to follow. Facts on the ground differ with the RL headcanon that is the NRA's "irrelevance". All the histrionic bibble of campaigning against 5-7 million Americans -- teachers, nurses, firefighters, cops, hunters, farmers -- as child-killers and terrorists has backfired into record gun sales after a year or more without them. It took about a week for the DNC's policy people to start trying to shift the rhetoric to "it's just the NRA's leadership, not the membership" but the damage was done; besides, the self-activated ground level cretins didn't get the message or care.

Hhhh'ok

You do you, boo.

Be safe though.

[Stormdash]

Hhhh'ok

You do you, boo.

Be safe though.

Would really be curious which fact you find in dispute there. But there's nothing to you but pithy smugness to deflect engaging such questions I'm detecting.

[Themerlin]

Would really be curious which fact you find in dispute there. But there's nothing to you but pithy smugness to deflect engaging such questions I'm detecting.

Am I that hard to read? lol

I think you are sifting through the scraps for a reaction.

Like I said "You do you, boo"

[Roxinius]

Am I that hard to read? lol

I think you are sifting through the scraps for a reaction.

Like I said "You do you, boo"

pretty sure the only one fishing for a reaction was you

[PhaelixWW]

Huffpost: Goodbye Justice Kennedy And Goodbye Gun Control

The news that Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired from the Supreme Court is sending liberals and progressives into a panic. Kennedy has of course been the key swing vote in abortion and gay rights cases. Whether those cases will withstand a new Supreme Court with five core conservatives is a serious question. But there is another area of Supreme Court jurisprudence that may also be dramatically affected by Kennedy’s retirement: the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has only ruled in favor of an individual right to own guns in two decisions, and in neither one did Kennedy write his own opinion. He did, however, make up one of the five votes in both 2008’s D.C. v. Heller, and 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago. Both cases invalidated complete bans on possessing handguns in each city. The Supreme Court has not, however, returned to the Second Amendment since McDonald was decided, despite thousands of lower court cases wrestling with the balance between the right to keep and bear arms and public safety.

On the same day in 2014, the court refused to review three cases involving laws regulating the selling of guns to people across state lines as well as a Texas law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying guns in public. The justices have also declined to review cases upholding permitting procedures regulating guns in public in Maryland, New York and New Jersey, among many other laws and cases.

Justice Clarence Thomas has not been quiet about his anger over the court’s refusal to hear any new Second Amendment cases. In a dissent from the court’s refusal to hear a case challenging California’s 10-day waiting period for gun sales, he wrote that the Second Amendment is a “disfavored right” and the Supreme Court’s “constitutional orphan.” Furthermore, he said that the lower court’s sustaining of the waiting period was “symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.”

There has been a lot of speculation about why the five court conservatives, including Kennedy, have not reviewed any of the lower court cases upholding various gun restrictions. The most common theory is that neither the four conservatives other than Kennedy, nor the four liberals, knew how Kennedy was going to vote.

Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor, and author of one of the most important books ever written on the Second Amendment, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, speculated in 2014 that among the other justices that “there must be some concern about the way Kennedy is going to go” in future gun cases. Well, that concern is now moot.

President Donald Trump has not been quiet about his support for gun rights, the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association. There is little doubt that whomever he nominates will be fully supported by the NRA. That organization was positively giddy when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and that is unlikely to be different with Kennedy’s replacement.

What this likely means is that we can expect the Supreme Court to start reviewing a few of the more important gun control cases now percolating in the lower courts. Whether the issue is the validity of bans on so-called assault rifles, the length of waiting periods before people can buy guns or requirements for people to receive concealed-carry permits, our nation’s highest court may well start imposing its will on the gun measures of all 50 states and many cities and towns.

Kennedy’s uncertain swing vote is simply no longer an obstacle. Whether another conservative justice, most likely Chief Justice John Roberts, will step in to allow these difficult and complex issues to be decided at the state and local levels is anyone’s guess.

Sadly, I wouldn’t bet on it.

[Ghostpanther]

Huffpost: Goodbye Justice Kennedy And Goodbye Gun Control

I sure hope they do look at some of those cases. Some, notably the ones which restrict conceal carry permits to only those who can show a need, in my opinion, are violating the 2nd Amendment. As shared by a Federal Judge in a appeal to a similar law in D.C.'s type of restriction.

[Stormdash]

pretty sure the only one fishing for a reaction was you

Indeed the projection is real. Every bit of this has been attention-seeking from him first asking if there were any NRA... was it fan boys? CBA to check.

[Ghostpanther]

A example of how compliance in a armed robbery is not always going to mean you will not be harmed.