i am legitimately scared about trump becoming president

Post Reply New Topic

Same with me, though add to that racial equality, labor rights, social justice, etc. The positions you and I believe in are held in utter contempt by conservatives, who think people like you should either be forced to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, or just go die. How long do you think you could depend on those social programs without liberals?

I'll take my chances. Not all republicans are anti welfare. All liberals are anti freedom. It's a choice between a known evil and a chance I'll choose chance.

This is what liberals don't get. Most gun owners are single issue voters, that single issue being gun rights. So maybe if the democrats dropped gun control and become pro gun their double their votes.

Number one - liberals are not anti-freedom, otherwise they wouldn't have fought for the civil rights of blacks, gays, women, and others.
Number two - even if not all Republicans are anti-welfare, more than enough are, especially those holding office. Good luck depending on them.
Number three - if you're a single issue voter, then I can't stop you. But for myself, I'm not going to let a single issue dominate how I vote, especially if that means I run the risk of siding against my interests in every other matter.

So you'd vote for a liberal who's also a kkk member?
Or a liberal who's wants to ban abortion.
I bet there's an issue so important to you that if someone was for 99% of what u like but polar opposite of that one issue you'd vote against them.

Well I will die fighting to keep my guns. Anti gunners would send boot wearing thugs to kill me and take my guns so I'll never ever ever vote for an antigun . Unfortunately democrats believe falsely that if they aren't antigun their lose the party vote. So f**k the party, burn it to the ground. You can't support some freedoms and attack others. Freedom is a all or nothing thing. Your either for all freedom or your against freedom.

A liberal who is a KKK member is a contradiction in terms.
And on the abortion issue, while I hold much of the pro-life movement in contempt, I find myself personally siding with the pro-life stance, none the less. And right there, is an example of how I'm not a single issue voter. Despite my opinions about abortion, I'm still going to support Democratic candidates, because for the most part, their positions reflect my own.

Are you REALLY that dumb???

There are many situations where the police cannot protect you from being robbed, raped, beaten up, or killed. Particularly if the aggressor is bigger and stronger than you, not to mentioned armed with a gun themselves! But the real modern purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves against each other, not the *big bad gubbermint*. It infuriates me how the right has turned to anarchism the way the left did in the 60s and 70s("death to the state! power to the people!" and other idealistic piffle ).
Many black people own guns who are *not* gangstas or thugz because they live in areas where violent criminals are right next door and cannot rely on the protection of the law. You think only white guys like guns?

I dislike Obama because he's a WEAK president who capitulates to the opposing side far too easily and really hasn't done much at all for Afro-Americans whose situation has gotten much worse under his watch. And a good example is how he punked out and refused to uphold the law when the Bundy boys instigated an armed confrontation with the government in Nevada and now in Oregon! Clinton dealt with this and put a stop to it. Not to mention Slick Willy standing his ground with a republican controlled congress.

Kkk are/were democrats.

(Sigh) Yes and no. The KKK were Democrats, back in the days before LBJ's civil rights legislation, as were most white southerners (they associated the Republican party with Lincoln, and the so called "War of Northern Aggression"). That said, those were the days back when there were both liberal and conservative Democrats, and liberal and conservative Republicans, before the two parties became so ideologically stratified - and most white southern Democrats were definitely conservative. White southerners, including the Klan, began looking to the Republicans as the Democrats nationally became the party of civil rights for blacks and other minorities. The transformation became complete with Ronny Raygun, who began his Presidential campaign near the scene of where three civil rights workers had been murdered in Mississippi, saying that the south had been humiliated by having civil rights for blacks force fed to them. Conservative white southerners have been voting Republican ever since, and with them, the KKK, and with it a very rigid, fundamentalist secular/religious ideology that has been driving the GOP ever since.

Lot of reports coming in about this thread, and it's pretty clear why. There's lots of heated, partisan mud-flinging.

I know this is an emotional topic for all concerned, but please try to discuss it without accusing anyone who disagrees with you of trying to take away your rights/guns/abortions/freedom, or calling people names.

Not entirely sure that the thread is salvageable but I'm going to leave it open for now. Please don't post if you're not going to be civil. When you write up that witty dig that feels so good to write, take a minute to consider whether you actually want to say it.

There is no point talking guns with people that have never held a gun(like Barack Obama) and crap their pants at their very sight, no point talking about the 2nd Amendment at all since it is a settled matter. "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear too me. Europeans will wish they had guns when it is all said and over with, I think a lot of them are starting to have those thoughts now.

^There's enough right there to write pages on explaining the fallacy of with examples, many of which can be drawn from this forum as one source.

How about liberals wanting to limit free speech?
Need lots of examples or will that statement stand on its own merit?

that's a question, not a statement. you can tell from the ? at the end.

could you provide examples as the only noteworthy result in google for "liberals wanting to limit free speech" is about Ben Carson wanting to violate the 1st amendment via policing colleges.

you're right, it won't matter to gun owners how many people die as long as they can keep their unregistered weapons.

What about strong civil libertarians like William Douglas? He was a strong liberal, both in politics and on the bench, and a staunch defender of free speech too.

Making these over generalized assumptions and hyperboles is utterly ludicrous.

It's always democrats telling people what they can't say(political correct). Creating free speech zones. Yeah I remember that in the constitution. "Thou has the right to free speech only in small oked zones set up by the government"
Libertarian=\= liberal. They two very different groups.

I take your point, but you have to admit that current legislators are making it significantly more than "slightly" more difficult for women, especially low-income women, to get an abortion. When was the last time any legislator proposed sticking an ultrasound wand up the ass of any man wanting to get a gun?

edit:
It has to do with what we want the laws to be. You think the constitution supports you? I disagree, but for the sake of argument I'll give you the point: fine. In that case, I want a constitutional amendment.


None of which - even if true, which it is not - disproves my point that cars are more regulated than guns.
I'm neither rich nor connected, and neither are my friends, but I could have gotten a gun in California with little problem; several of my friends already had guns, and at least one had a CC permit.
edit:

None of which were as important for day-to-day life as cars are now (most people didn't need a horse to get to work, and therefore to survive).

The internet is about as far of a leap from the presses of that era as modern armaments are from the weapons of that era, and we're in the midst of a rash of legislation about how much the internet can and should be regulated; we're not even allowed to have the same discussion about guns at a legislative level.


Again, don't pretend to be stupid. I never said that people aren't killed by things other than guns. I said that guns are better tools for killing things than are knives, hammers, etc. If guns were not better tools for killing people in specific, the military would not spend so much money on them.

all the gunshows that allow private sellers as well as dealers.
re. Craigslist, I stand corrected... not that it really changes my point.
edit:

LOL I guess you've never lived in a rural area.

Oh, so in your state you have to sign over a title every time you transfer a gun? Your gun requires a license that is renewed annually? You have to have a license with your photo on it to use a gun, and you have to take a shooting test to get it? You can have your license for using a gun removed if a doctor says you're too old? You have to go to a government agency and wait in line to make changes to your or your car's licenses, and you have to report to that agency when you move? There is a state police force specifically patrolling places where you shoot in order to make sure that shooting laws are not broken...?
Just what state do you live in?

I've never heard of such a case, but if that's true then I agree that the system needs to improve. There shouldn't be many false positives or false negatives.

Uhh... who is doing this? Can you please provide specific examples?

LOL I guess you're a white man.

Last edited by LKL on 26 Jan 2016, 3:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.