Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Any private US citizen, having determined with sufficient evidence that a person or private entity has violated state firearm laws pertaining to use, storage, transportation or firearm capability and characteristics, is authorized to file civil suit against that person or entity in the amount of $1,000.

Online forms shall be made available subject to a modest filing fee, and are lodged as valid and enforceable if the individual or entity has been found guilty in state or Federal District courts of such an offense, have pled guilty to such an offense, or have been fined for such an offense.

Defendants are required to deal with each suit individually; “bundling” the defense against these claims is not permitted.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Texas is willing to make a legal medical procedure subject to lawsuits, then surely there will be unanimous support for holding criminals and law breakers financially responsible for their actions.

The misuse of firearms is associated with enormous societal costs.

Individual responsibility is an important part of a healthy society.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A possible addendum: if the defendant agrees to turn in for destruction ALL firearms and ammunition and firearm accessories currently in their possession AND forswears the right to own, voluntarily possess, use, manufacture or trade firearms, then all claims may be placed in suspended status for five years.

If, by the end of that period no infractions of their oath occurs, then all debts are discharged and the self-imposed limitations are rescinded.

Any person submitting proof of violation of this agreement are entitled to 10% of all properly filed claims, and all claims subsequently become immediately enforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want me to report on people..... for unsafe firearm ownership.

That seems like a poor idea if I value my well being.

Would it be anonymous?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

So you want me to report on people..... for unsafe firearm ownership.

That seems like a poor idea if I value my well being.

Would it be anonymous?

No.

But if the addendum was part of the law, then anyone willing to pay money to get dangerous weapons off the street could either do it themselves or fund an individual or entity to find the cases and file the suits on their behalf.

The addendum turns the proposed law more into a behavior modification tool rather than a vindictive method to bankrupt inept, careless or criminal gun owners.

But I’d love to see a Dick Cheney type sued by millions for shooting his friend in the face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone thinks for a moment that this Republican led Supreme Court has any morality at all, and won't craft a decision knocking down any attempt at gun righteousness, by Gavin Newsom, is simply not paying attention. Trump's Supreme Court will decide law as it wishes, without fear of retribution, they are the majority and they decide law as only they see fit.

Democrats disappoint repeatedly when they fail to grasp the rules as dictated by Republicans, it is never about morality, just winning. Until Democrats level the playing field they will remain losers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Remodel said:

They need to include gun makers and sellers in the equation. Otherwise it has no teeth.

I disagree for two reasons.

First, Gunmakers are specifically excluded from civil liability suits by certain federal laws, and one would have to prove violation of federal or state laws before levying a $1,000 suit against them.

Second, this proposal is designed to change the behavior and mindset of gun owners such that safety and following regulations is their first and foremost principle.

Its about promoting personal responsibility.

 

Edit to add: the law would apply to illegal gun sales and trades

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I disagree for two reasons.

First, Gunmakers are specifically excluded from civil liability suits by certain federal laws, and one would have to prove violation of federal or state laws before levying a $1,000 suit against them.

Second, this proposal is designed to change the behavior and mindset of gun owners such that safety and following regulations is their first and foremost principle.

Its about promoting personal responsibility.

Like that has a chance in hell of happening.:rolleyes:

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Remodel said:

Like that has a chance in hell of happening.:rolleyes:

Good luck!

"Hypothetical" is not in your lexicon is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Remodel said:

They need to include gun makers and sellers in the equation. Otherwise it has no teeth.

And add a digit to the $ for each offense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dacapo said:

And add a digit to the $ for each offense. 

I'd start with an extra digit. $10,000 to start with, just like the Texas abortion abortion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

"Hypothetical" is not in your lexicon is it?

I must have missed it. Where in the thread, other than your post is that word used?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I'd start with an extra digit. $10,000 to start with, just like the Texas abortion abortion.

Zactly  what I meant 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I thought it was obvious that this thread is based on a proposal. Sloops and everyone else understood, but I guess some other folks need a bit of guidance.

 

I've noticed that over the last 2 years there has been an ever increasing need for the purple font or laugher emoticons.

Senses of humour appear to have been another casualty of Covid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I've noticed that over the last 2 years there has been an ever increasing need for the purple font or laugher emoticons.

Senses of humour appear to have been another casualty of Covid.

Especially today since I live at ground zero - my neighborhood is in the weird space of nonincorporated which means fireworks are legal, so last night as always they started at dark peaked around midnight and didn't stop until 2AM. In the past I would just take a walk after 1AM with a bright flashlight and get close while shining in the faces until they quit. My better half begged me to stop so i have. Imagine if you will a huge display and you are in the middle. These are commercial grade ones that sound like mortars then bombs when they explode.  I posted on the neighborhood FB page today

On the 12th day of Christmas the fireworks gave to me

Another case of PTSD.

So, cut me some slack jaks. I mean nothing surprises me anymore living here. And likely to get a repeat of the festivities until the handful of assholes run out of ammo - usually takes a few days. The past year or so the decibel level has gotten to defcon 5 as in deafening. It's twice a year and sucks worse every time. Several suburbs in Texas have the same issues but freedumb reigns so fuggaboutit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The past year or so the decibel level has gotten to defcon 5 as in deafening. It's twice a year and sucks worse every time.

I daresay it's much the same - you're just getting older. ;)

I've noticed that the only noise that doesn't bother me more as I age is the sound of crying babies.

When I became a grandpa I noticed that they didn't bother me.

Everything else does though - I don't even like loud exhausts on hot cars anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

The past year or so the decibel level has gotten to defcon 5 as in deafening. It's twice a year and sucks worse every time.

I daresay it's much the same - you're just getting older. ;)

I've noticed that the only noise that doesn't bother me more as I age is the sound of crying babies.

When I became a grandpa I noticed that they didn't bother me.

Everything else does though - I don't even like loud exhausts on hot cars anymore.

Nope. If you go to a big fireworks display and see the big ones going off start with a boom and then explode a couple of times in the air? That's what people get now - to the point that strings of fire crackers can't even be heard.  I made the mistake of going out at midnight without ear protection and my ears are still ringing.  In Texas there is no noise ordinance only a nuisance one which is almost impossible to enforce. The aholes in the neighborhood invite all their homies to come and gather to celebrate.  Imagine if you will the community fireworks display is held in your backyard. If you can. Now imagine that for 8 hours. I am not making this up.

I don't bullshit nor exaggerate and am not alone in being frustrated but it's not fighting city hall its fighting Texas freedumbs.  We may well give up and move this year - one of our best friends is a long time realtor who lives close by and is also beyond frustrated.

Quote

Besides Fourth of July and New Year's, Texas counties have the choice of also including Texas Independence Day (March 2), San Jacinto Day (April 21), Cinco de Mayo (May 5), and Memorial Day. You can use fireworks any day of the year as long as they are not banned in the area you live.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before my father retired from Los Angeles Fire Department, they used to pull the fire trucks out onto the apron, and park their

personal vehicles inside a few nights a year.  WAY less chance of bullet damage from above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Nope. If you go to a big fireworks display and see the big ones going off start with a boom and then explode a couple of times in the air? That's what people get now - to the point that strings of fire crackers can't even be heard.  I made the mistake of going out at midnight without ear protection and my ears are still ringing.  In Texas there is no noise ordinance only a nuisance one which is almost impossible to enforce. The aholes in the neighborhood invite all their homies to come and gather to celebrate.  Imagine if you will the community fireworks display is held in your backyard. If you can. Now imagine that for 8 hours. I am not making this up.

I don't bullshit nor exaggerate and am not alone in being frustrated but it's not fighting city hall its fighting Texas freedumbs.  We may well give up and move this year - one of our best friends is a long time realtor who lives close by and is also beyond frustrated.

 

On the plus side, if you go burn their house down, the cops will assume the dumbshit did it himself.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

On the plus side, if you go burn their house down, the cops will assume the dumbshit did it himself.

- DSK

Yup, one Solas grade marine flare through the window and it's toast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

Nope. If you go to a big fireworks display and see the big ones going off start with a boom and then explode a couple of times in the air? That's what people get now - to the point that strings of fire crackers can't even be heard.  I made the mistake of going out at midnight without ear protection and my ears are still ringing.  In Texas there is no noise ordinance only a nuisance one which is almost impossible to enforce. The aholes in the neighborhood invite all their homies to come and gather to celebrate.  Imagine if you will the community fireworks display is held in your backyard. If you can. Now imagine that for 8 hours. I am not making this up.

I don't bullshit nor exaggerate and am not alone in being frustrated but it's not fighting city hall its fighting Texas freedumbs.  We may well give up and move this year - one of our best friends is a long time realtor who lives close by and is also beyond frustrated.

 

Killjoy......

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

On the plus side, if you go burn their house down, the cops will assume the dumbshit did it himself.

- DSK

New year's Eve saw our family do it's usual thing of walking up the nearest hill.

The illegal fireworks being set off around the compass make for some cheap entertainment.

The occasional finger/hand flying through the air only adds to my enjoyment!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Yup, one Solas grade marine flare through the window and it's toast.

Oh boy, you shouldn’t have said that. There are some Grade-A assholes several houses down that fire off the “big stuff” and don’t know when to quit. Within legal hours I accept even though I don’t like it (and my dog freaks out the entire time), but 1, 2, 3am is BULLSHIT. They’ve been talked to by several people in the neighborhood which only gets you laughed at and harassed the rest of the year. The sheriff? Bwaahah, useless for shit like this. Real white trash these fuckers are.

A moonlight stroll with a flare or two around the front of the house while they get their yeehaw on in the back of the property is a sketchy, illegal but interesting idea. Not that I would be involved in anything like that, at worst there could be kids or others inside and at best you’re an arsonist. But still…how do you teach these fucks a lesson?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. My brother posted a plea on FB the other day, showing his dog shivering and freaking out despite a "Thunder Vest". He lives in the Czech Republic, and apparently its a day or two of fairly regular mortars and pyrotechnics.

Cool dog: they do orienteering type running races together. They've won 40lb bags of dog food and such together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Interesting. My brother posted a plea on FB the other day, showing his dog shivering and freaking out despite a "Thunder Vest". He lives in the Czech Republic, and apparently its a day or two of fairly regular mortars and pyrotechnics.

Yeah my dog wears his vest and gets dosed with trazadone ahead of time; we close the windows, hang out in the basement, doesn’t help…he freaks out the entire time. Again, within legal hours? We don’t like the mortars etc but deal with it. All night long? These ignorant fucks need to get a message that will make an impact. No one has figured out what “the message” should be…yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, WhoaTed said:

Oh boy, you shouldn’t have said that. There are some Grade-A assholes several houses down that fire off the “big stuff” and don’t know when to quit. Within legal hours I accept even though I don’t like it (and my dog freaks out the entire time), but 1, 2, 3am is BULLSHIT. They’ve been talked to by several people in the neighborhood which only gets you laughed at and harassed the rest of the year. The sheriff? Bwaahah, useless for shit like this. Real white trash these fuckers are.

A moonlight stroll with a flare or two around the front of the house while they get their yeehaw on in the back of the property is a sketchy, illegal but interesting idea. Not that I would be involved in anything like that, at worst there could be kids or others inside and at best you’re an arsonist. But still…how do you teach these fucks a lesson?

Shoot the flare over the roof?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, WhoaTed said:

Yeah my dog wears his vest and gets dosed with trazadone ahead of time; we close the windows, hang out in the basement, doesn’t help…he freaks out the entire time. Again, within legal hours? We don’t like the mortars etc but deal with it. All night long? These ignorant fucks need to get a message that will make an impact. No one has figured out what “the message” should be…yet.

Buddy up to 'em, invite yourself to their little fireworks display, spike their drinks with LSD.

They'll forget to set off the fireworks and just roll around on the grass laughing. And hopefully the next day will have a better appreciation for peace love and understanding.

Alternatively, add a few bouncing betties to their fireworks collection.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Buddy up to 'em, invite yourself to their little fireworks display, spike their drinks with LSD.

They'll forget to set off the fireworks and just roll around on the grass laughing. And hopefully the next day will have a better appreciation for peace love and understanding.

Alternatively, add a few bouncing betties to their fireworks collection.

- DSK

PM sent, let’s talk.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the responses I got on the neighborhood FB page was the laff emoji and "it's legal in Texas so light em up".   My response is the laff emoji and

"Great - I'm taking the midnight to 4am shift".

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Buddy up to 'em, invite yourself to their little fireworks display, spike their drinks with LSD.

They'll forget to set off the fireworks and just roll around on the grass laughing. And hopefully the next day will have a better appreciation for peace love and understanding.

Alternatively, add a few bouncing betties to their fireworks collection.

- DSK

People like that generally have bad trips.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2022 at 10:36 AM, phillysailor said:

Any private US citizen, having determined with sufficient evidence that a person or private entity has violated state firearm laws pertaining to use, storage, transportation or firearm capability and characteristics, is authorized to file civil suit against that person or entity in the amount of $1,000.

Online forms shall be made available subject to a modest filing fee, and are lodged as valid and enforceable if the individual or entity has been found guilty in state or Federal District courts of such an offense, have pled guilty to such an offense, or have been fined for such an offense.

Defendants are required to deal with each suit individually; “bundling” the defense against these claims is not permitted.

 

This tactic can be turned against the first amendment too, though it might not go so well in some cases.

I continue to agree with the gun nutz who were first to say that this is a bad idea and should be squashed, not copied.

  

On 10/29/2021 at 5:46 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

But if you're going to copy bad ideas that are dangerous to multiple rights, why stop with Texas? Go full Massachusetts!

The State Supreme Court there ruled that the second amendment only applies to weapons from the 18th century. They were overruled by SCOTUS, but SCOTUS rulings can be reversed if there's political support. There seems to be, based on posts on this forum.

So go ahead and amend your idea accordingly. I'm sure there will be the kind of "unanimous" support you described when anti-abortion nutz say that the fourth amendment was written in the 18th century so only medical tech from that time can be used to perform abortions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

Tom, why are you opposed to lawsuits against people who are convicted of breaking the law, thereby posing a grave threat to society?

cuz dogballs

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Tom, why are you opposed to lawsuits against people who are convicted of breaking the law, thereby posing a grave threat to society?

Why are you opposed to simply locking people up who break the law?

Also, why are you opposed to adopting the Massachusetts model and applying the Bill of Rights only to 18th century tech?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2022 at 3:36 PM, Lochnerian Tom said:

Why are you opposed to simply locking people up who break the law?

Also, why are you opposed to adopting the Massachusetts model and applying the Bill of Rights only to 18th century tech?

Why are you opposed to allowing people to sue those people who endanger lives and cost society approximately $280 Billion every year?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Why are you opposed to allowing people to sue those people who endanger lives and cost society approximately $280 Billion every year?

Why are you opposed to simply locking people up who break the law?

Also, why are you opposed to adopting the Massachusetts model and applying the Bill of Rights only to 18th century tech?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do a great job answering questions when I think you will do the same.

Ive laid out a proposal, based on an existing state law, that is neither draconian nor does it affect gun owners who don’t break the law.

Why don’t you comment on the proposal _before_ changing the subject, more than an off hand “oh, the Texas law shouldn’t have been passed.”

The anti-abortion bill HAS been passed, and this law is most def to be considered in that context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I do a great job answering questions when I think you will do the same.

Ive laid out a proposal, based on an existing state law, that is neither draconian nor does it affect gun owners who don’t break the law.

Why don’t you comment on the proposal _before_ changing the subject, more than an off hand “oh, the Texas law shouldn’t have been passed.”

The anti-abortion bill HAS been passed, and this law is most def to be considered in that context.

I have answered in several threads, notably the one about the law you're supporting in Texas on abortion.

On 12/23/2021 at 5:18 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

Democrats should apply Supreme Court’s abortion decision to firearms

More authoritarian chicken, this time from Lawrence Tribe, who actually admits he knows better.

Quote

 

...

There is no doubt that Texas’ controversial abortion ban and its injunction-skirting mechanisms represent an alarming affront to federal protection of constitutional rights and to the rule of law. As advocates of such protection, we do not come easily to our endorsement of these efforts. We would much rather follow Michelle Obama’s once timely mantra, “When they go low, we go high.” But doing so here would dramatically misread the moment.

...

 

They're pretending that the TX law is now "established" in law but that fight is far from over and TX is still likely to lose, IMO. Still grabbers who want to entrench the precedent before it's even established are not helping.

If you think a situation forces you to accept an "alarming affront to federal protection of constitutional rights" then maybe it's time to think a bit harder about the situation and ways out of it.

The bolded bit is the main point.

As for this,

On 1/1/2022 at 10:36 AM, phillysailor said:

violated state firearm laws pertaining to use, storage, transportation or firearm capability and characteristics

I continue to fail to see the harm of my wife continuing to possess her battlefield .22, so don't agree with the FL proposal to ban and confiscate it, nor with your proposal to attach crippling liability to it. Either will only lead to a boating accident and I'm big on boating safety.

I already mentioned how lawsuits were used to attack first amendment rights upthread. Now there's a stupid drug war example from California in the relevant thread. It never ends.  Americans are endlessly creative in suing people to attack rights they don't like.

Texas' 6-Week Abortion Ban Threatens Every Constitutional Right

And so does your idea and the others I've mentioned, for the same reasons.

Now, about the Massachusetts example, do you think the Bill of Rights applies to 18th century technology only, or does it apply to newer stuff?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I do a great job answering questions when I think you will do the same.

Ive laid out a proposal, based on an existing state law, that is neither draconian nor does it affect gun owners who don’t break the law.

Why don’t you comment on the proposal _before_ changing the subject, more than an off hand “oh, the Texas law shouldn’t have been passed.”

The anti-abortion bill HAS been passed, and this law is most def to be considered in that context.

congratulations, philly, you got yourself a date with runaround sue

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, Republicans are fine with gun owners jeopardizing their lives of other citizens and having society subsidize resultant costs if they are white and NRA members. These folks should get all the guns they need, even if work arounds like gun “gifts” or swaps or such are the transactions required to do so.

Restrictive laws cannot be imposed on these fundamental rights. For whites.

They are also ok with abortions as long as it’s white women who are in relationships with well off white guys.

But blacks marching with guns or poor women trying to get the same access to health care options as the baby mommy of a southern politician upsets them.

The problem you, and your ilk, have with this proposal is that it levels the playing field between you and the poor inner city black kid found in possession of a gun.

Hes not only gonna have the book thrown at him, resulting in jail and prison time, his financial future will be irreparably harmed by the court costs and the impact of a criminal record on employment and educational prospects for the rest of his life.

White folks, statistically, receive different prosecutional choices and outcomes, including with dogballs violations.

Financial devastation from breaking gun laws just make your justice equal to his.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2022 at 8:49 AM, phillysailor said:

I disagree for two reasons.

First, Gunmakers are specifically excluded from civil liability suits by certain federal laws, and one would have to prove violation of federal or state laws before levying a $1,000 suit against them.

Second, this proposal is designed to change the behavior and mindset of gun owners such that safety and following regulations is their first and foremost principle.

Its about promoting personal responsibility.

Edit to add: the law would apply to illegal gun sales and trades

Behavior is tough to change. It should start in elementary school where kids should read about gun safety at home. Then they can ask their parents.
Of course parents should know about the classes and reading. No ideology, just safety.

On 1/1/2022 at 8:42 AM, badlatitude said:

If anyone thinks for a moment that this Republican led Supreme Court has any morality at all, and won't craft a decision knocking down any attempt at gun righteousness, by Gavin Newsom, is simply not paying attention. Trump's Supreme Court will decide law as it wishes, without fear of retribution, they are the majority and they decide law as only they see fit.

Democrats disappoint repeatedly when they fail to grasp the rules as dictated by Republicans, it is never about morality, just winning. Until Democrats level the playing field they will remain losers.

There is a big hurdle that Newsome has to jump over. The text of the Second Amendment reads in full:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The words that strike me the most is the security of a free state. Of course a well regulated Militia is made up of private citizens who want security in a free state. And after watching what these radical DA's have been doing to let criminals out of a revolving door. I'd say everyone should have a fireare at home for the Protection of your free state. California is a fascist run state and the Dems in this case are the fascists'. The definition is Calif Dems to the tee. the Dems fund Planned Parenthood clinics which overwhelmingly abort more black babies than help the mothers. Dems want to kill of the black babies.

Gun ownership is a right guaranteed, abortion is not. in many cases an Abortion is only a medical procedure if the mother's life is in danger or the baby is so screwed up it will have a horrific life.

 

On 1/1/2022 at 1:18 PM, SloopJonB said:

I've noticed that over the last 2 years there has been an ever increasing need for the purple font or laugher emoticons.

Senses of humour appear to have been another casualty of Covid.

It's about ideology now days. Even I have gotten sucked into arguments with idiots and must apologize.

Where have all the moderates gone?

well, I got to go make G10 backing plates for my new stanchion bases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meat Wad said:

the Dems fund Planned Parenthood clinics which overwhelmingly abort more black babies than help the mothers. Dems want to kill of the black babies.

 

1 hour ago, Meat Wad said:

Where have all the moderates gone?

Quoted for its asininity.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

Gun ownership is a right guaranteed, abortion is not. in many cases an Abortion is only a medical procedure if the mother's life is in danger or the baby is so screwed up it will have a horrific life.

 

You couldn't be more wrong about that.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether to have an abortion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2022 at 12:36 PM, Lochnerian Tom said:

Why are you opposed to simply locking people up who break the law?

Also, why are you opposed to adopting the Massachusetts model and applying the Bill of Rights only to 18th century tech?

Are you saying govt can’t regulate arms? That’s a new theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The problem you, and your ilk, have with this proposal is that it levels the playing field between you and the poor inner city black kid found in possession of a gun.

Hes not only gonna have the book thrown at him, resulting in jail and prison time, his financial future will be irreparably harmed by the court costs and the impact of a criminal record on employment and educational prospects for the rest of his life.

Well, no, I've been supportive of the public defenders who have been saying exactly what you are: that gun control is and always has been racist.

I already said the problem I have with your idea: endorsing a dangerous attack on one right endangers others and you should stop it IMO.

And, since I did answer, even though the answer was ignored and a strawman substituted, let's see if this was bullshit:

20 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I do a great job answering questions when I think you will do the same.

So, about the Massachusetts example, do you think the Bill of Rights applies to 18th century technology only, or does it apply to newer stuff?

 

5 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Are you saying govt can’t regulate arms? That’s a new theory.

Nope, that's just another stupid strawman. I've endorsed lots of gun regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

On 9/10/2021 at 12:00 PM, phillysailor said:

I admit I haven’t read this entire thread. Has anyone posted this? Excellent argument.

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

Pastor Dave Barnhart

It's a pretty excellent argument, but in the end he's defending womens' right to an abortion against the TeamD desire to grab guns. Nothing can match that desire, so the women are tossed under the bus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2022 at 11:36 AM, phillysailor said:

The addendum turns the proposed law more into a behavior modification tool rather than a vindictive method to bankrupt inept, careless or criminal gun owners.

Looks to me like a vindictive method to bankrupt people who insist on owning battlefield .22's and other all other guns, since possessing them is the "criminal" behavior you want to punish.

It also sounds like a dangerously stupid endorsement of Texas' power grab at a time when the right response would be to swat it down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you want, Tom. But it's still a law that punishes lawbreakers.

Texas wants to punish women who arrive at a very personal medical decision with a doctor.

This is a classic case of whataboutism that rings false; you want everything to be comparable to the other side, but it just ain't the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Say what you want, Tom. But it's still a law that punishes lawbreakers.

Yes, I just disagree about whether possession of battlefield .22's should be against the law at all.

  

7 hours ago, phillysailor said:

This is a classic case of whataboutism that rings false; you want everything to be comparable to the other side, but it just ain't the same.

It is the same to Gavin Newsom and Letitia James and Lawrence Tribe, to name a few notables who join in your desire to emulate Texas' bad idea.

On 1/1/2022 at 10:51 AM, phillysailor said:

If Texas is willing to make a legal medical procedure subject to lawsuits, then surely there will be unanimous support for holding criminals and law breakers financially responsible for their actions.

You opened the thread with a "they're the same" and now want to back off. But both power grabs really are the same, as you originally said and as those others I mentioned realize. They see a way to grab power over guns and just don't give a shit if it makes things worse for women who want abortions because gungrabbiness is the highest TeamD goal.

Anyway, about the Massachusetts example, do you think the Bill of Rights applies to 18th century technology only, or does it apply to newer stuff?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2022 at 2:26 AM, Pertinacious Tom said:

let's see if this was bullshit:

On 1/7/2022 at 5:41 AM, phillysailor said:

I do a great job answering questions when I think you will do the same.

So, about the Massachusetts example, do you think the Bill of Rights applies to 18th century technology only, or does it apply to newer stuff?

Great job indeed! I guess that's a hard question?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...