• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

And without a well-regulated militia.
 
Like the bible, these people pick and choose the portions of documents they want to believe (cite). Only the parts that they decide fit their own narrative. A bunch of people walking around with guns does not a "well regulated militia" make. The only way this bs gets fixed is in congress and, ultimately, the courts. I won't hold my breath. At this point the dems are nearly as complicit as the gQp.
 
deaconson said:
Like the bible, these people pick and choose the portions of documents they want to believe (cite). Only the parts that they decide fit their own narrative. A bunch of people walking around with guns does not a "well regulated militia" make. The only way this bs gets fixed is in congress and, ultimately, the courts. I won't hold my breath. At this point the dems are nearly as complicit as the gQp.
Click to expand...

In some ways, the leap in logic required to go from the Second Amendment saying that owning single-shot muskets as part of a "well-regulated militia" is allowed, to claiming that in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries that the same Second Amendment allows and was intended to allow any nut to stockpile automatic weapons that the Framers themselves couldn't possibly have envisioned in their basements is symbolic of what's wrong with modern politics and society. I will say that gun control legislation is something that I gave up on a long time ago and have become very pessimistic about, and I don't see anything happening on that front anytime soon, no matter how many more mass shootings and massacres take place. Americans seem almost immune to it now, even if it involves school shootings.
 
so how will everyone being armed stop this shit? That is the dumbest fucking argument I have ever heard. These guys are suicidal or at the least not afraid of being shot to death, and more bullets in the air from the "good guys with guns" will just kill more innocents in the process of trying to kill the bad guy.

Why do otherwise intelligent conservatives accept the dumbest arguments imaginable to stop government regulations? It's just mind-blowing. You people are dangerous even if you don't carry a weapon, just by supporting this nonsense. There is credible data out there that more gun control prevents gun deaths. It is indisputable, yet you will ignore it just to "keep the government off your back" just because a charismatic politician said so. holy mother fuck
 
Last edited:
Guns don't shoot people, vaccines shoot people.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...
This is not surprising at all. I have heard many conservative gun lovers espouse this exact position. They then turn around and insist they back the blue and that anyone who doesn't comply with the commands of a police officer deserves to get shot.

It would be funny if it wasn't actually scary fascism.
 
Some guy took up arms against the government during a Republican softball practice. They didn’t seem to fond of it then.

The taking arms against the government talk ramped up under Obama. It died down during Trump. Looks like Gaetz is trying to start it up again. Just call it what it is. Priming the people for violent rebellion. Again.
 
It really is incredible how stupid these arguments are. Just absolutely brainwashed by the NRA so that certain people can get rich. I swear these morons would fight for the cigarette companies if that issue were being addressed today. There is no doubt in my mind they’d be buying up time on Hannity and he would be spewing garbage about how the left is cancelling cigarettes.
 
Deacon923 said:
This is not surprising at all. I have heard many conservative gun lovers espouse this exact position. They then turn around and insist they back the blue and that anyone who doesn't comply with the commands of a police officer deserves to get shot.

It would be funny if it wasn't actually scary fascism.
Click to expand...

I've heard that excuse a lot over the years - citizens have to own guns to protect themselves if the government ever becomes a tyranny. Putting aside that it's gun-rights Republicans and not Democrats who are currently moving us down that road, the notion that, for example, yokels with guns could stop military drones capable of flying into to your bedroom window and blowing your house to pieces from a safe distance is absurd. And lots of rural whites have a real love/hate relationship with the police. As long as they're used to control minorities or big city folk they're fine and deserve support, but whenever they go after rural white folk breaking the law, from making moonshine to meth, suddenly they're mean sumbitches whom they despise.
 
Deacon923 said:
This is not surprising at all. I have heard many conservative gun lovers espouse this exact position. They then turn around and insist they back the blue and that anyone who doesn't comply with the commands of a police officer deserves to get shot.

It would be funny if it wasn't actually scary fascism.
Click to expand...

This may have in fact been the original intent of the second amendment.
 
birdman said:
This may have in fact been the original intent of the second amendment.
Click to expand...

The origins of the amendment are pretty murky. Certainly there seems to have been some element of preserving the right of states (not ragtag groups of Proud Boys) to protect themselves from Federal tyranny. There are also some indications that it was included at the behest of states who felt militias were needed to control their slave populations and continue westward expansion by fighting natives.
 
Highland Deac said:
I've heard that excuse a lot over the years - citizens have to own guns to protect themselves if the government ever becomes a tyranny. Putting aside that it's gun-rights Republicans and not Democrats who are currently moving us down that road, the notion that, for example, yokels with guns could stop military drones capable of flying into to your bedroom window and blowing your house to pieces from a safe distance is absurd. And lots of rural whites have a real love/hate relationship with the police. As long as they're used to control minorities or big city folk they're fine and deserve support, but whenever they go after rural white folk breaking the law, from making moonshine to meth, suddenly they're mean sumbitches whom they despise.
Click to expand...

Not to mention they’re the same people that want the military that they would be fighting against to be stronger than God.
 
Deacon923 said:
The origins of the amendment are pretty murky. Certainly there seems to have been some element of preserving the right of states (not ragtag groups of Proud Boys) to protect themselves from Federal tyranny. There are also some indications that it was included at the behest of states who felt militias were needed to control their slave populations and continue westward expansion by fighting natives.
Click to expand...

Nah, we can figure out the original meaning if we squint real hard and ask our selves "What would Scalia do?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top