Conservatives insist the rest of us live by their rules

Post Reply New Topic

Eh, depends entirely on your interests.

Both sides wish to, and do legislate against harmless lifestyles.

For me, I'd rather freedom to own scary looking firearms (not just ones "they" think I'm safe with) than the ability to marry a dude. Hence, I think the lefties insist I live by their rules more so (which have more bearing in emotions than facts, kinda like that religion thingy of the righties).

guns aren't harmless.

Then mine must be defective. They haven't even bumped an individual.

How many other U.S. firearms haven't harmed anyone?

anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Well, then, let's take your opinion seriously. If there are about 300 million U.S. firearms in private ownership, where are the corresponding statistics to show a commensurate number of deaths?

well currently the right is busy playing defense, while the left is on the attack. next year the right plans to put ssi/ssdi on the chopping block which scares me. but its a one every year thing not a constant no rest attack. they keep attacking gun rights non stop little to big. been like 2 years since we've seen .22rl ammo on the shelf. it use to be so abundent they didn't eve keep it behind the counter you could buy thousands and thousands of rounds of it(sold in 500rd boxes for $18) but they keep attacking and getting very little besides exhausting us and selling tons and tons of guns and ammo. for a side that wants to get rid of all guns they'll responsible for just getting more and more guns out in the public. but lots of anti gun politicians always invest in gun stocks(money one not wood) so its no wonder they keep pushing it. its making me depressed I'm so tired. I'd like to go a few months without some person trying to remove my rights. I miss the old days. I got guns at 22. there were a few good years, cheap ammo, very very few anti gun attacks. life was good. it was post AWB. now so many gun owners live in fear and constant attack, while being called monsters or baby killers.

simple because the left don't' like guns but rather then leave it at that they have to make it so everyone can't have guns to live like they want. why can't they just not buy them and let those who do be able to. shootings aren't any more often then they've been in the past its just now used for the banning all guns agenda. get the antis together in a room and listen. you'll hear their true plans which is all guns gone and banned. "first its handguns then rifles" is what one at a gathering. they'll playing the long game.

"If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."

Eh, depends entirely on your interests.

Both sides wish to, and do legislate against harmless lifestyles.

For me, I'd rather freedom to own scary looking firearms (not just ones "they" think I'm safe with) than the ability to marry a dude. Hence, I think the lefties insist I live by their rules more so (which have more bearing in emotions than facts, kinda like that religion thingy of the righties).

your question would be valid if it was a case of 1:1 gun ownership:person. it's not.

I had, but I was working with an incorrect version in my head which left out the "abridge the privileges" section. I accept that banning same-sex marriage whilst legalising it for opposite-sex couples could be unconstitutional and I defer to the legal experts who ruled that way.


You didn't read my post.

I'm neither a US citizen nor resident, and as I made clear in my post, I approved of the ends of this ruling if not the reasoning itself. I'm glad you can now legally marry someone you feel sexual attraction to.

I "complained" because I don't think lawyers and judges should be making laws about private morality, because it leaves a nation beholden to the personal opinions of unelected officials. They should merely be ruling on interpretations of laws and whether laws themselves are consistent with others. The results this time were good, but what happens if the Supreme Court becomes more conservative and rules that laws allowing for mixed gender bathrooms are unconstitutional? What if they'd voted that it was unconstitutional to force people to go against their religious beliefs?

I'm less concerned now that I see the judges in this case did have a bit of constitutional law to fall back on, but I still think it would have been better to leave this as a state's rights issue. We're quite clearly going to win this battle, in ten or twenty years every state would have legalised it without feeling like it was forced upon them. Now there's a chance people will resent having their laws changed by well-meaning lawyers a long way away, and won't actually adopt a pro-gay marriage stance.

I made it quite clear that I was talking about Republicans. He's not a Republican. Strong candidate, though I wouldn't bet on him, and I'm not sold on his position on free trade but you can't have it all.

anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

So does that mean if you experience/witness something....its not valid, and it should just be assumed you're lying. Now granted anecdotal evidence isn't reliable to study and what not, can't make statistics out of it but it does have its place. People learn about things by hearing of peoples personal experiences with such things as well....but I do know anecdotal evidence/discussion is common and perfectly acceptable in forum threads. It is actually useful to hear from people actually involved in something, how they experience it rather than only trusting some outside 'experts' opinion.

Then, answer it from the consideration of 100 million U.S. firearm owners.

the flaky nature of human memory is well documented.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf page 22 onwards (least biased source i could find)
as far as I can tell this is not x/100,00 people.

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74) 21,175
Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34) 505
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (*U01.4,X93-X95) 11,208
Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (Y22-Y24) 281

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf page 22 onwards (least biased source i could find)
as far as I can tell this is not x/100,00 people.

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74) 21,175
Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34) 505
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (*U01.4,X93-X95) 11,208
Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (Y22-Y24) 281

...Then what's next knives, swords, followed by any blunt weapons?