Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Iggo

(47,444 posts)
126. Hey, there it is! The "All Or Nothing" false dichotomy.
Fri Dec 8, 2023, 01:28 PM
Dec 8

Gunfuckers love that one.

Another one of their greatest hits is: “You guys come up with ideas, and we’ll tell you if we like them or not.” (Spoiler: It’s always “or not”…lol.)

Would you be in favor of the relocation of Iowa to the East Coast? mahatmakanejeeves Dec 8 #1
Anything is possible....Donald Trump elected President?...I didn't think it was possible..It happened Stuart G Dec 8 #3
Trump InstantGratification Dec 8 #32
Anything is possible... pazzyanne Dec 8 #82
PLEASE READ POST NUMBER 286...THAT IS THE ISSUE...AIN'T IT? Stuart G Dec 11 #291
Yes, I would be in favor of a removal of the 2nd Amendment. Escurumbele Dec 8 #71
Sure. It's a f'ing stupid 'right'. Voltaire2 Dec 8 #2
I agree with you .......... Stuart G Dec 8 #5
And rifles were muzzle-loaded. Wednesdays Dec 8 #43
Musket office shooting aeromanKC Dec 8 #47
Experts Say The Best Of Riflemen... ProfessorGAC Dec 9 #194
And ... Straw Man Dec 10 #213
An Appropriate Username ProfessorGAC Dec 10 #216
Not a professor of rhetoric, I see. Straw Man Dec 10 #222
With that logic, then we should go back to quil and ink? SlimJimmy Dec 11 #283
Why not? yagotme Dec 11 #252
because the danger to innocent people is so much greater with today's weapons. And people in the l8th century could not CTyankee Dec 12 #410
The Puckle gun was a predecessor of the concept of the modern revolver. yagotme Dec 12 #411
OK, I'll take your premise. So are you saying that as that technology changed, the founders mindset would be the same as CTyankee Dec 12 #412
I agree that they would be horrified. yagotme Dec 12 #413
I'm trying to envision how nice that would be in my daily life. How safe I would feel at home, driving in traffic, in a CTyankee Dec 12 #414
If you personally felt it would, go for it. yagotme Dec 12 #415
That's good to hear! CTyankee Dec 12 #417
They have personal alarms. Around your neck, etc. yagotme Dec 12 #418
As long as I'm here, it won't happen. But I don't feel I could leave him to visit my kids over Xmas. I'd be too scared. CTyankee Dec 12 #419
I understand. Both of my parents ended up in LTC. yagotme Dec 12 #420
Yes, I would... Think. Again. Dec 8 #4
Wow, how many times must we go over this? A well regulated militia means ... SlimJimmy Dec 11 #288
Thank you for correcting me!... Think. Again. Dec 11 #320
Yes. NewHendoLib Dec 8 #6
If it were up to me / Song by Cheryl Wheeler Give Peace A Chance Dec 8 #75
I know it doesn't say what gun humpers say it means elias7 Dec 8 #7
And if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle Fullduplexxx Dec 8 #8
Pretty transphobic I've got to say The Contrarian Dec 8 #48
It is not transphobic . I dont degrade anyone with that statement Fullduplexxx Dec 8 #123
Your aunt can have a dick and still be your aunt. The Contrarian Dec 8 #148
Consider deleting your post. Voltaire2 Dec 8 #72
Always heard that cliche with balls. maxsolomon Dec 8 #110
I always heard it said with dick ...hmmmm Fullduplexxx Dec 8 #124
I always heard it more like this: Gidney N Cloyd Dec 9 #202
Heh. "If my Aunt had wheels she'd be a pastry cart," says my husband. No offense to pastry carts. Hekate Dec 10 #226
As far as i know, that expression precedes the coining of the word transphobia. ShazzieB Dec 11 #284
Good luck with your campaign against this colloquial expression. maxsolomon Dec 11 #293
I know i can't cnotrol what anyone else does. ShazzieB Dec 11 #369
Seriously? Lunabell Dec 11 #315
No I wouldn't want it removed completely edisdead Dec 8 #9
CLEARLY STATED RESTRICTIONS ARE UP TO STATE GOVERNMENTS. Stuart G Dec 8 #11
States Rights being argued for on DU. edisdead Dec 8 #15
100% agree Karma13612 Dec 8 #31
Well the federal government is almost entirely disfunctional. Voltaire2 Dec 8 #69
I believe the question is largely theoretical to start with. edisdead Dec 8 #150
No. I would be in favor of an amendment that says the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment is no longer Scrivener7 Dec 8 #10
IS THIS REASONABLE GUN OWNERSHIP? Stuart G Dec 8 #16
There is no reason for you to go off on me. You asked a question. I answered it. Scrivener7 Dec 8 #18
i am sorry if ...I went off on you. Stuart G Dec 8 #30
No worries. Scrivener7 Dec 8 #33
"Reasonable gun ownership" is a mirage. It becomes a tragedy when a reasonable gun owner gets angry, drunk and goes for CTyankee Dec 10 #231
Well, with the current number of firearms available, yagotme Dec 11 #253
No, but it doesn't surprise me. CTyankee Dec 11 #263
I'm sorry for your loss. yagotme Dec 11 #264
We should do that, of course, but that won't solve the gun problem here in the U.S. CTyankee Dec 11 #373
The Rights Listed in the Bill of Rights are Inalienable Rights Abnredleg Dec 8 #12
IS THE WIDE SPREAD AVAILABILTY OF GUNS........."GOD GIVEN'? Stuart G Dec 8 #20
You missed the bit about interpretation Abnredleg Dec 8 #28
The "country" doesn't have the rights. The people do. yagotme Dec 11 #254
Do you think the founders thatdemguy Dec 11 #384
(including the right to a jury trial for twenty dollars?) lastlib Dec 8 #62
Except for the 2A the are all quite alienable. Voltaire2 Dec 8 #74
All are inalienable Abnredleg Dec 8 #80
Just about every other BoR has been Voltaire2 Dec 8 #88
That's what I've been saying all along Abnredleg Dec 8 #90
..well, seems to me the militia thing. thomski64 Dec 8 #84
Doesn't list white people, either. yagotme Dec 8 #134
I think opening a history book would be in order. NNadir Dec 11 #349
The constitution can be amended . . . markpkessinger Dec 11 #350
You are correct. Then that would eventually lead to a dictatorship/police state. yagotme Dec 11 #352
Inalienable rights were defined in the Declaration of Independence as Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness. Gore1FL Dec 11 #357
It's not an exclusive list Abnredleg Dec 11 #358
Perhaps the 3 list have company. Gore1FL Dec 11 #366
That's What the Federalists Argued Abnredleg Dec 11 #380
The minute Authoritarian ReTHUGs seize power malaise Dec 8 #13
Gun rights for me(MAGAt), but NOT for thou.(Democrats) ProudMNDemocrat Dec 8 #51
Yep malaise Dec 8 #70
Of course, what authoritarian government do you know that allows the people to be armed to the teeth to overthrow them.. usaf-vet Dec 8 #86
I would be in favor of enforcement of the "well regulated" part randr Dec 8 #14
Free government training for firearms ownership? yagotme Dec 11 #255
It should be amended not eliminated entirely. harumph Dec 8 #17
I'd be in favor people actually reading it. mzmolly Dec 8 #19
With comprehension. niyad Dec 8 #22
Right! The second amendment is about gun regulation. mzmolly Dec 8 #24
Then, what's your comprehension of the phrase "shall not be infringed"? nt yagotme Dec 8 #137
The context matters. Is regulation an infringement? mzmolly Dec 8 #161
Yes, regulation can be an infringement. If it denies access to arms, right? yagotme Dec 9 #169
What does well regulated mean to you? mzmolly Dec 9 #203
As understood in the 1700's it means "well organized and trained" /nt Abnredleg Dec 10 #228
That's not what it says. mzmolly Dec 11 #267
But, that was a definition in that time frame. nt yagotme Dec 11 #269
No it wasn't. mzmolly Dec 11 #271
And you know this....how? Sal_NV Dec 11 #273
I was in the same place as the person I responded to. mzmolly Dec 11 #287
Where did I say I accept anything? Sal_NV Dec 11 #329
So, what does a "well regulated clock" mean? yagotme Dec 11 #274
Strawman 2 mzmolly Dec 11 #276
Names instead of answers. yagotme Dec 11 #282
I'm not answering absurd questions in which definitions mzmolly Dec 11 #285
Got it. You don't like one of the definitions of a term that was in common use in the 1700's, yagotme Dec 11 #294
The NRA sources are not factual. mzmolly Dec 11 #299
"Time" magazine? Unbiased? yagotme Dec 11 #302
Fox "news" fan? mzmolly Dec 11 #311
You posted an article from "Time". "Time" has an anti-gun bias. Therefore, I suspect. yagotme Dec 11 #313
LOL mzmolly Dec 11 #328
A well regulated militia TexasDem69 Dec 11 #387
Read the convo. mzmolly Dec 11 #388
You haven't! TexasDem69 Dec 11 #389
Bull mzmolly Dec 12 #407
See 1b and 2 per your link: yagotme Dec 11 #247
So says Libertarian Jon Roland, the founder of your source. mzmolly Dec 11 #268
This one better? yagotme Dec 11 #278
How about this? mzmolly Dec 11 #297
In regards to the militia, "well regulated" yagotme Dec 11 #304
No. It meant we were not going to trade anarchy mzmolly Dec 11 #310
...and courts/legislatures interpreting it the way it's written and meant. lastlib Dec 8 #67
Well mzmolly Dec 8 #130
And ... Straw Man Dec 10 #208
"A well regulated Militia..." mzmolly Dec 10 #220
Standing army vs. citizen militia ... Straw Man Dec 10 #221
Well regulated mzmolly Dec 10 #223
"Purchased legally" is not equivalent to "unfettered access." Straw Man Dec 10 #229
You skipped over the articles I posted mzmolly Dec 10 #233
Post removed Post removed Dec 10 #234
Well I'm open to your suggestions. mzmolly Dec 10 #235
I would suggest a gun owner's license. Straw Man Dec 10 #236
Ban assault weapons mzmolly Dec 10 #237
Political theater and a drop in the bucket. Straw Man Dec 10 #239
Obviously there is a difference between... mzmolly Dec 10 #240
Difference? Straw Man Dec 11 #242
Blah blah blah. mzmolly Dec 11 #245
"Society is not the issue." yagotme Dec 11 #257
Oh bullshit. What is this Free Republic? mzmolly Dec 11 #270
Sorry if facts get in the way of your way of thinking. yagotme Dec 11 #272
Well you know that when the argument falls flat, Sal_NV Dec 11 #275
Yup. yagotme Dec 11 #279
I threw it because it's mzmolly Dec 11 #290
Yes, those are facts. yagotme Dec 11 #295
Sock Puppet? Sal_NV Dec 11 #322
Facts? mzmolly Dec 11 #289
Facts are facts, regardless of source. yagotme Dec 11 #296
You haven't presented facts. mzmolly Dec 11 #298
This sentence ruins your whole article. yagotme Dec 11 #301
Seriously? You misunderstand what is meant by the word 'republican' mzmolly Dec 11 #333
Ah, so various words DO have different meanings... nt yagotme Dec 11 #334
None of those meanings refer to clocks. mzmolly Dec 11 #337
The clock reference, btw, one that has been used several times before, yagotme Dec 11 #340
I get the ridiculous comparison. mzmolly Dec 11 #371
Absurd? yagotme Dec 11 #375
Sounds like small r "republican" is what was meant. ShazzieB Dec 11 #353
I know. yagotme Dec 11 #354
That chart seems to be way off, it says 148 events in 41 years thatdemguy Dec 11 #385
Heller addressed that argument TexasDem69 Dec 11 #391
After this discussion that I'd like it repealed. mzmolly Dec 12 #408
No, they aren't changing the meaning of the words TexasDem69 Dec 12 #421
Your revisionist definitions are noted. mzmolly Dec 12 #422
Nothing in your post disproves my point TexasDem69 Dec 12 #423
You appreciate the Bush loaded SCOTUS 5-4 ruling. I get it. mzmolly Dec 12 #425
My issue with that is: EX500rider Dec 9 #175
Nope. yagotme Dec 11 #258
Fine, a well regulated militia is the goal TexasDem69 Dec 11 #390
Nope Squatchman Dec 8 #21
Im in agreement gay texan Dec 8 #34
I am someone whose family experienced a death because a law abiding citizen with a loaded gun in his night table CTyankee Dec 8 #77
We would have had more decades of Marvin Gsye's music if there hadn't been a gun wryter2000 Dec 8 #122
I grieved his death so much. I loved him and his message of hope. CTyankee Dec 8 #127
What a tragedy wryter2000 Dec 8 #143
Curious... MorbidButterflyTat Dec 8 #146
Yes radicalleft Dec 8 #149
Michigan does love guns DetroitLegalBeagle Dec 10 #206
Yeppers Blues Heron Dec 8 #23
It would be like closing Pandora's box. Or like closing the barn doors after the horses bolted. Axelrods_Typewriter Dec 8 #25
..i agree.. thomski64 Dec 8 #76
What is a military style weapon? That definition has been slammed around for years. nt yagotme Dec 8 #139
You are right that being LGBT you are at increased risk of danger in many places in the U.S. CTyankee Dec 8 #91
Yes but unless AI takes over, it won't happen. raccoon Dec 8 #26
Ban military style weapons surfered Dec 8 #27
OUTSTANDING IDEA...TOTALLY ...'Ban military style weapons." Stuart G Dec 8 #37
Remember the '94 ban? yagotme Dec 8 #55
I remember it Hangingon Dec 10 #225
At a higher price, too. yagotme Dec 11 #250
Strict constructionists should abide bucolic_frolic Dec 8 #29
If you follow the idea of "strict constructionist", then you'd better get off your computer. yagotme Dec 8 #50
A strict construction would consider all Voltaire2 Dec 8 #78
"Well regulated". yagotme Dec 8 #140
The "well-regulated militia" clause ... Straw Man Dec 10 #214
100! InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 8 #35
Nope -- not eliminated, but well regulated JT45242 Dec 8 #36
Yes, your ideas would help a whole lot. ........"Well Regulated" Stuart G Dec 8 #38
I've actually been using this argument on forums with MAGAts Best_man23 Dec 8 #39
Whoa! I'm stealing that!! Scrivener7 Dec 8 #41
The reason I am going to say no BlueKota Dec 8 #40
Getting rid of the 2nd amendment doesn't mean getting rid of gun ownership. progressoid Dec 8 #58
Some here believe a total ban is reasonable MichMan Dec 8 #133
OK. That's one option. Doesn't really matter since this is all hypothetical. progressoid Dec 8 #145
No, I would rather the SCOTUS interpret the 2nd from the original militia standpoint Ohioboy Dec 8 #42
You need to read the federalist papers thatdemguy Dec 11 #386
You need to read the Congressional record where they debated the 2nd Amendment Ohioboy Dec 12 #404
A different interpretation & stricter laws Joinfortmill Dec 8 #44
Yes. ShazzieB Dec 11 #300
Yes, a ban was done once, and allowed to expire, because it did little to nothing. yagotme Dec 12 #398
No, and even if it were repealed, Sal_NV Dec 8 #45
Not really, however... RocRizzo55 Dec 8 #46
Absolutely. Time and time again... chouchou Dec 8 #49
Do you have a source for this? yagotme Dec 11 #260
Good luck with that. Ocelot II Dec 8 #52
NO. Too many states would place almost no restrictions on firearms. Martin Eden Dec 8 #53
Yet the Second never mentions guns. multigraincracker Dec 8 #54
I can go to the store and buy any knife I want, without paperwork. yagotme Dec 8 #57
There are laws in my state multigraincracker Dec 8 #64
Carry and concealment, yes. Purchase, very little (depends on type, of course). yagotme Dec 8 #66
Knife regulation intelpug Dec 10 #209
You're right...sort of. Captain Stern Dec 10 #215
But, to buy ANY firearm at a store, you have to fill out a form, get it approved, etc. etc. yagotme Dec 11 #248
Depends on the drug. ShazzieB Dec 11 #306
absolutely!!! gopiscrap Dec 8 #56
No, I don't believe in removing rights. nt LexVegas Dec 8 #59
Would that include the right to live? It seems a lot of gun crazies have no problem with eliminating that right. NNadir Dec 11 #367
I dont believe in removing any rights. nt LexVegas Dec 11 #374
Well, historically there were people who claimed a right to own human beings. It was constitutionally protected. NNadir Dec 11 #382
Ok. Good luck! LexVegas Dec 11 #383
Please cite the interpretation you are referencing: yagotme Dec 12 #399
Sorry, but I'm not prone to using sarcasm emojis. I have no idea what was going through the mind of that asshole... NNadir Dec 12 #403
Well, I took your post to be serious, so perhaps an emoji would help some of us out yagotme Dec 12 #406
Yes claudette Dec 8 #60
No firearms for self defense? Sal_NV Dec 8 #61
Each state would have its own regulations. Voltaire2 Dec 8 #81
Yes, I made that point in my initial post. Sal_NV Dec 8 #83
They will need you to go door to door and search for any prohibited weapons. MichMan Dec 8 #104
Which we and everyone else here knows isn't going to happen. nt Sal_NV Dec 8 #106
If we are going to get rid of the 2nd amendment, why not the 4th as well ? MichMan Dec 8 #111
Hell, while we're at it, screw the BoR and the Constitution, Sal_NV Dec 8 #157
not really. Voltaire2 Dec 8 #128
No hunting guns permitted right? MichMan Dec 8 #132
I'm fine with hunting. Voltaire2 Dec 8 #151
I must have missed the hunting exemption in your post MichMan Dec 8 #163
Like I said, you probably won't like your choices. Voltaire2 Dec 9 #165
Choices. Straw Man Dec 11 #243
Not unless they also become a problem. Voltaire2 Dec 11 #280
This statement speaks volumes: yagotme Dec 11 #307
Yes because a few football riots are equivalent to a chronic epidemic of mass shootings. Voltaire2 Dec 11 #361
Yes, and the fans sometimes go out in public afterwards, assault people, damage property, spread a lot of litter, etc. yagotme Dec 11 #362
For most sports fan 'streaming only' would no change. Voltaire2 Dec 11 #363
Must have missed the "assault" part. yagotme Dec 11 #364
"after a super generous buyback period" EX500rider Dec 11 #303
Because ... Straw Man Dec 10 #212
No claudette Dec 10 #218
Are you kidding? Sal_NV Dec 10 #219
"Because the purpose of a hunting rifle is to kill for food" yagotme Dec 11 #261
I would ban hunting TexasDem69 Dec 11 #393
Uh Lets see Cherokee100 Dec 8 #63
I believe you are mistaken... yagotme Dec 8 #65
No but it sure needs updating. I think semi-auto long guns and magazines. doc03 Dec 8 #68
No SocialDemocrat61 Dec 8 #73
Ordinarily, I wouldn't object. However, with the threat of open Fascism looming, and the proliferation of white Firestorm49 Dec 8 #79
Absolutely. byronius Dec 8 #85
Absolutely, but it will never happen. Fla Dem Dec 8 #87
I still haven't seen a list of these "regulations" world wide wally Dec 8 #89
Maybe look harder? EX500rider Dec 9 #177
So, please enumerate these regulations. world wide wally Dec 9 #179
You want me to lists 20,000 laws & regulations? How about you use google EX500rider Dec 9 #182
just however many you think would make it "well regulated" world wide wally Dec 9 #187
20,000 laws does not sound like "poorly regulated" to me, YMMV EX500rider Dec 9 #188
...And then there is reality. world wide wally Dec 9 #190
Yes. Not in the 70s or 80s, but I would have never imagined where we are at. n/t brewens Dec 8 #92
Yes, because owning of a mere firearm does not offer protection Freethinker65 Dec 8 #93
Be like Australia. moondust Dec 8 #94
No. Straw Man Dec 10 #211
Self defense? Aussie105 Dec 11 #319
So, you don't believe that anyone has ever used a firearm for self defense? yagotme Dec 11 #324
Sound good to me! ShazzieB Dec 11 #316
It needs to be properly clarified. LiberalFighter Dec 8 #95
But, who are "the people"? yagotme Dec 8 #100
That's an absolutely incorrect statement TexasDem69 Dec 8 #152
I don't think that is true EX500rider Dec 9 #178
It's no longer necessary for the security of a free State. CaptainTruth Dec 8 #96
Yes. No reason for this to be a constitutional right. Kablooie Dec 8 #97
Hell, yes. DavidDvorkin Dec 8 #98
I would just like it to be interpreted correctly then removal is unnecessary. nt GuppyGal Dec 8 #99
No. republianmushroom Dec 8 #101
Under no circumstances, The Mouth Dec 8 #102
No, because all the others except the first would have to be renumbered, causing great confusion and cost. usonian Dec 8 #103
Cannon existed in 1791. yagotme Dec 8 #107
Try carrying one. usonian Dec 8 #113
Not just military: yagotme Dec 8 #114
Might want to think of a different phrase for that EX500rider Dec 9 #181
Yes, I used it loosely. usonian Dec 9 #191
Sure, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane both slaughtered millions EX500rider Dec 9 #196
But not individually. usonian Dec 9 #198
Yes LeftInTX Dec 8 #105
No. H2O Man Dec 8 #108
Yes DBoon Dec 8 #109
If the SC simply put the first sentence into perspective, and context of the time, the amendment could stand. Chainfire Dec 8 #112
No, the army was the army. yagotme Dec 8 #115
The first sentence in a paragraph tells you what the rest of the paragraph is about. Chainfire Dec 8 #147
So, in ignoring my question, I'm to take it that you see "the people" in the 2d, yagotme Dec 9 #167
Agreed. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty for gun control advocates to claim the 2nd Amendment isn't about an Midwestern Democrat Dec 9 #170
Well, for whatever reason, they keep on trying... yagotme Dec 9 #172
They did once upon a time wryter2000 Dec 8 #121
It hasn't been needed for over 200 years bif Dec 8 #116
Its removal is long overdue. LonePirate Dec 8 #117
The vast number of shootings of people are done by people with handguns, not rifles. MichMan Dec 8 #135
Yes wryter2000 Dec 8 #118
No. I disagree with your premise. SYFROYH Dec 8 #119
It certainly needs to be updated GoodRaisin Dec 8 #120
"Military assault rifles" were a requirement for a militia member at that time. yagotme Dec 9 #193
Colonials we're all out to capture a Brown Bess Hangingon Dec 10 #224
Yup. The "assault weapon" of the era. yagotme Dec 11 #249
Yes! broiles Dec 8 #125
Hey, there it is! The "All Or Nothing" false dichotomy. Iggo Dec 8 #126
Just make it "well regulated" krawhitham Dec 8 #129
yes mike_c Dec 8 #131
Except there are already current penalties against gun violence MichMan Dec 8 #138
apparently not strict enough mike_c Dec 8 #144
How about 20 years minimum for any crime involving a gun TexasDem69 Dec 8 #155
Current laws would be effective, yagotme Dec 9 #173
This is really meaningless: yagotme Dec 9 #171
Yeah that is up there with "I've never needed seatbelts" or a fire extinguisher as proof of anything EX500rider Dec 9 #183
"I don't need it, so you don't, either." yagotme Dec 9 #186
Repealing the second amendment would make the country a far safer place............also: Stuart G Dec 11 #318
Sure, as long as it's understood that we'd lose for the next twenty years. Elessar Zappa Dec 8 #136
Sure. What kind of question is that? It has come to reinforce a streak of sheer madness in our national psyche. Hekate Dec 8 #141
Yes. MorbidButterflyTat Dec 8 #142
This thread isn't going as the OP thought it might TexasDem69 Dec 8 #153
See post 162 NickB79 Dec 9 #176
Yes, or least, adding another amendment that clearly allows for regulation In It to Win It Dec 8 #154
Regulations are allowed now EX500rider Dec 9 #184
Well, that's being tested very heavily at the moment. In It to Win It Dec 9 #204
Let's assume the 2d Amendment is repealed TexasDem69 Dec 8 #156
only if every last magat & rw thug is stripped of their arsenal ecstatic Dec 8 #158
Not just No..... Fla_Democrat Dec 8 #159
Its an amendment, It can be amended. hydrolastic Dec 8 #160
Yes, it CAN be amended. yagotme Dec 9 #174
Over half the households in the US now have a gun NickB79 Dec 8 #162
Im friends with a guy with a ffl and small gun store DetroitLegalBeagle Dec 9 #201
Yes LetMyPeopleVote Dec 8 #164
Given the extreme difficulty of passing any constitutional amendment, MineralMan Dec 9 #166
No Hangingon Dec 9 #168
No. I could however see it edited for today. Runningdawg Dec 9 #180
No... Mike Nelson Dec 9 #185
i would rather have them read the whole thing in total and expanded to ban war weapons . AllaN01Bear Dec 9 #189
You know, when the 2d was written, it was meant for the militia to be REQUIRED yagotme Dec 9 #192
Indeed EX500rider Dec 11 #309
Absolutely angrychair Dec 9 #195
YES! Somebody give me ONE good reason NOT TO! CTyankee Dec 9 #197
Because a clear majority of Americans oppose TexasDem69 Dec 9 #199
Because the issue of repealing the amendment has never been the focus of the debate. Certainly, I would if I had a CTyankee Dec 12 #405
Re-read title of OP. yagotme Dec 12 #409
No Nt hack89 Dec 9 #200
No. But I do favor... Happy Hoosier Dec 9 #205
Yes. nt Maru Kitteh Dec 10 #207
To date, 209 responses to this...question. flvegan Dec 10 #210
No. I would rephrase it to remove any reference to a militia. Shrek Dec 10 #217
No, absolutely not. nt Raine Dec 10 #227
I would prefer something else quaker bill Dec 10 #230
Yes MaryMagdaline Dec 10 #232
I would. It is outdated anyway and creates confusion mvd Dec 11 #246
What restrictions do you recommend, that we currently don't have? yagotme Dec 12 #400
Given the chance of Dump stealing the election in 2024, not right now. roamer65 Dec 10 #238
If Trump was to win the 2024 election, we'll all be dead ducks anyway. ShazzieB Dec 11 #356
The military will fracture. roamer65 Dec 12 #396
In a perfect world yes, but currently it would be a loosing issue and might cause 10,000 Ruby Ridges. nt Quixote1818 Dec 10 #241
No, I love shooting pigeons and targets plus I have dangerous wildlife around my home and I know lots of hunters MistakenLamb Dec 11 #244
Absolutely Sky Jewels Dec 11 #251
Maybe we should make gun ownership a privilege instead of a right. SalamanderSleeps Dec 11 #256
No, just a clarification of the founding father's intent... brush Dec 11 #259
Wrong in so many ways... yagotme Dec 11 #262
And blah, blah, blah. Way to entirely miss the point of my post... brush Dec 11 #265
Blah, blah, blah, missing points: yagotme Dec 11 #266
Heehee. You stick to your guns I see, which certainly aren't... brush Dec 11 #323
Why mention it? Technology advances over time, and improves. yagotme Dec 11 #326
Glad you think all that was cleared up despite magats... brush Dec 11 #330
I mention computers as falling under the 1st Amendment, and you come back with 2020 election. yagotme Dec 11 #332
Computers and what's written on them IMO are covered by... brush Dec 11 #341
Per your view on modern firearms, computers CAN NOT be under the 1st. yagotme Dec 11 #343
I never said compters had anything to do with firearms. What's written on them... brush Dec 11 #348
Well, let's try this again: yagotme Dec 11 #351
What's written on computers is freedom of speech... brush Dec 11 #359
You have left out part of the amendment: yagotme Dec 11 #360
If I left out a couple of words it wasn't intended. I take it though... brush Dec 11 #365
Full auto weapons are currently heavily regulated by the US govt. yagotme Dec 11 #368
Seems we're sort of on the same page. Seems full-automatice weapons... brush Dec 11 #370
Terms are confusing, sometimes on purpose: yagotme Dec 11 #372
Me too mvd Dec 12 #416
FYI: Trained Revolutionary War era infantry reloaded muskets 2-3x per minute. SYFROYH Dec 11 #378
Very impractical idea. Who's going to enforce it? /nt bucolic_frolic Dec 11 #277
Absolutely budkin Dec 11 #281
What makes you say that? EX500rider Dec 11 #312
Wrong. Not just wrong, totally wrong. yagotme Dec 12 #401
THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS DISCUSSION IS WHAT NIYAD POSTED... IT IS POSTED BELOW: Stuart G Dec 11 #286
No. We people may need that right if Trump wins the election totodeinhere Dec 11 #292
WHAT IF YOUR SIBLING, OR CLOSEST FRIEND WAS SHOT & KILLED BY TOTAL STRANGER Stuart G Dec 11 #305
I would be extremely unhappy if any of those things happened. totodeinhere Dec 11 #308
We put seat belts in cars to protect people. Aussie105 Dec 11 #314
Who is empowered to decide what constitutes a legitimate purpose? MichMan Dec 11 #377
So, does your next to last sentence apply to cars, as well? yagotme Dec 11 #381
It doesn't matter what we are in favor of; the 2nd Amendment (which has 2 Ns, not 3) Ocelot II Dec 11 #317
Fair enough. Aussie105 Dec 11 #321
And again, I say Yes. This is madness. This contributes to our unacknowledged civil war. Hekate Dec 11 #325
We're in a shooting civil war? Who's side are we on? Who's the enemy?nt yagotme Dec 11 #327
It's the people with arsenals against all the rest of us. From babies in preschools to old people dancing... Hekate Dec 11 #339
So, no one in the Democratic party have guns or "arsenals"? yagotme Dec 11 #342
Do you feel you need an arsenal? In case of need are you planning to arm your friends & neighbors? Hekate Dec 11 #344
I have seen police "layouts" of "arsenals". yagotme Dec 11 #346
On second thought, yes. Dealing with the revisionist idiots in this thread mzmolly Dec 11 #331
I would. Gun ownership is not a right...SCOTUS got it wrong...a well armed militia is Demsrule86 Dec 11 #335
Then, please, define "the people" as it appears in the 2d. yagotme Dec 11 #338
I would. Gun ownership is not a right...SCOTUS got it wrong...a well armed militia is Demsrule86 Dec 11 #336
You asked in good faith, I believe, but -- ah well, deletion of this post is my friend Hekate Dec 11 #345
Yes. It's a horrid anachronism. NNadir Dec 11 #347
It will be committing political suicide DUar17 Dec 11 #355
Yes. I would remove it. Maybe have an asterisk in its place with a succinct explanation. No longer applicable. CTyankee Dec 11 #376
No, I just want to remove the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" part. Initech Dec 11 #379
id be fine if the gun nuts could only have 1778 muskets. pansypoo53219 Dec 11 #392
And everyone uses a printing press TexasDem69 Dec 11 #394
less facebook, twitter would be fine. go outside. read a book. pansypoo53219 Dec 12 #397
So, we have you down on the side of banning computers and phones. nt yagotme Dec 12 #402
no. but it does seem to increase stupidity. and hate. pansypoo53219 Dec 12 #428
The stupidity and hate were always there. yagotme Dec 13 #429
but gains in strength under bad people like Q making more qdiots. sigh. pansypoo53219 Dec 13 #430
absofuckinglutely. jcgoldie Dec 11 #395
Yeesh, this is still going on? Fla_Democrat Dec 12 #424
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 12 #426
NO Timewas Dec 12 #427
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Would you be in favor of ...»Reply #126