If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Left-wing idol-of-the-month Wendy Davis supports Texas open-carry gun law, becomes right-wing idol-of-the-month   (politico.com) divider line 542
    More: Interesting, Texas Opens, Texas, gun laws, Republican George W. Bush, Texas Democratic Party, right-wing, concealed handgun, Texas Attorney General  
•       •       •

1444 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2014 at 8:51 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



542 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 04:28:06 PM

HeadLever: enumerated right has a specific foundation that is explicit in the BoR


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

or:

area poster defends what he believes the constitution to say
 
2014-02-06 04:29:04 PM

HeadLever: When you have the Free Republic and ACLU both warning about surveillance and how that impacts our privacy, I am surprised that you can even ask that question with a straight face.


Free process was always narrowly defined and generally limited to family in procreation when it was created, information privacy was never part of it.  I think it should be, and maybe future cases will expand it, but that wouldn't be a constitutional erosion.

And while both can be modified, enumerated right has a specific foundation that is explicit in the BoR. Some modifications of enumerate rights cannot be done without first amending the constitution.

If 5 justices had decided the second amendment applied to militias as opposed to private gun toters, your understanding of the 2nd amendment would have been completely nullified.   Being enumerated doesn't give them magical protection from being interpreted in a manner that makes them functionally inert.
 
2014-02-06 04:30:24 PM

Doom MD: Wow, look at those goalposts move! I'm glad you're in favor of people using their discretion in determining when to carry their firearms, both concealed and openly.


O.o
What is that interjection for false claims, again?
Oh, right:  BULLSHIAT!
Look upthread:    modal
 
2014-02-06 04:31:19 PM
Whatever, it's Texas. If she had this same stance in New York then it would actually be surprising.
 
2014-02-06 04:35:01 PM

joness0154: Take a look at her after the beating and tell me how, because she isn't a diamond courier (per your example), she shouldn't be able to defend herself. Tell me how ANYONE shouldn't have the right to defend themselves. Go on...i'll wait.


And if I searched long enough I could find a person who had been hit by lightning, drowned in a bathtub, injured in industrial accidents, or hurt while moving furniture.
Does that mean people should stay indoors at all times, only take showers, never go to work, or leave the couch exactly where it is forever?

NO.

This is what the people who deride those who want to carry guns so badly are trying to tell you... it's paranoia. While what happened to the woman in the picture was terrible, but she had a much better chance of being injured or killed while driving to work that same morning. (10.69 deaths per 1000 persons in Illinois, 2012). The legislation you mentioned actually did nothing of consequence, and like most of its kind was passed due to fear and ignorance about real crime statistics... much like the so-called "Patriot Act".

tl,dr; have all the guns you like. Use them for sport, collecting, whatever. When when your fear drives you to carry at all times due to shadows and imagination, it's time to check yourself.
 
2014-02-06 04:50:15 PM
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved''? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp

"By making a bill of rights, we would imply that the government has the power to regulate rights."

And that's exactly what has happened.
 
2014-02-06 04:53:44 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: I said: Having firearms in public increases the danger to yourself and the public.
You demanded citations, so I blasted them at you.
Quit whining, sniveling, and trying to move the goalpost, go slink off to the corner, and stay there until you can acknowledge you done been whupped on your own terms.

You have yet to defend the "in public" part of your argument. Some of these happened in private. Others happened in places without open carry.

Show me incidents that arose from actual open carry, the kind advocated for by Wendy Davis, and show me how they made things worse for those places that enacted them, you'll have a point. Otherwise, it is you who are moving the goalposts by refusing to provide the citations that support the specific point that you are making.

The argument is about Open Carry. Your claims about Open Carry need citations.

Look upthread: I said walking around armed in public increases the danger to yourself and to the public.
You challenged my statement, demanding evidence.
I gave you evidence.

Now get yourself over to the corner, whining goalpost mover.


I'm not moving the goalposts. You claimed to be able to kick a field goal. I asked you to demonstrate, and you grabbed a basketball.

Your "evidence" was a general google search with the tems "shot himself" not "Open Carry." Your evidence was bad. It did not support the claim you made that "walking around armed in public increases the danger to yourself and to the public."

If you want to prove that Open Carry will make things dangerous, try finding articles about actual open carry incidents. Show me places in which there was Open Carry and how there was an increase in shootings. Show me actual stats regarding the specific act of Open Carry.

That's what you failed to show. You are so convinced that your "evidence" backed you up, but did you even read any of the links? Did you even look? If you want to make a case against a specific action, people being armed in public, then you need more specific references that show a general trend of harm to self and others by people carrying weapons in the Open Carry manner.

Just typing a term into Google, hitting enter, and posting the results is not the same as conclusive proof.

cousin-merle: You said not wanting to see guns around is the same as not wanting to see gay marriage, an emotional issue. He said, yeah, but sometimes people get shot on accident, so they're not really the same. You responded with a crazy wall of text lauding the ability of some gun owners not to shoot people accidentally, then asked for all the data ever which you know doesn't exist and is completely irrelevant to your original position. I think the only thing you are missing compared to gun arguments in my Facebook feed is links to a half-dozen 45-minute YouTube videos filmed in someone's basement supporting your position.


Actually, the only one posting a crazy wall of text fit for Facebook is you. This statement does not reflect what actually happened, it is just an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

And my original positon was all about Open Carry. I asked him to provide any citations that demonstrate Open Carry danger. Not people accidentally shooting themselves, but Open Carry. He made a specific claim on a specific issue and I asked him to support that specific claim. he did not do so, but used a totally different set of circumstances and just assumed it proved his point. It didn't.

It is also worth pointing out the percentage of people who don't shoot themselves, because if you're going to argue against open carry using stories of people shooting themselves, then lets look at the numbers. What percent of gun owners accidentally shoot themselves? What percent don't? If the percent who don't are very, very high, then again, your "evidence" doesn't support your claim.

And yes, I do see the emotional hyperventilation about guns to be the equivalent of the emotional hyperventilation about gay marriage. Both the anti-gun and anti-gay arguments involve a lot of emotion and unsubstantiated claims. Or the "evidence" doesn't actually support the claims being made.
 
2014-02-06 04:58:56 PM

sendtodave: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp

"By making a bill of rights, we would imply that the government has the power to regulate rights."

And that's exactly what has happened.


And the Constitution would never have passed without it. The counter argument is "Well, if it's not in the document, later readings of it will put it there." Example: "Where does it say you have the right to publish whatever criticisms of the government you want? That's sedition, pal, and since Congress defends the nation from threats foreign AND DOMESTIC, hop in that chair and put this cap on."

I prefer to have giant "NO ENTRY" signs over rights rather than empty lots where no one's gone...yet.
 
2014-02-06 05:00:06 PM

bmongar: Dinki: The 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to be an attention whore asshat.

No, that right is granted by the 1st amendment.


FIRE! FIRE! THERE'S A FIRE IN HERE!
 
2014-02-06 05:00:24 PM
So the anti-gun people in here are also anti-drug legalization, right? They should probably also want alcohol prohibition while they're at it. That is at least logically consistent.
 
2014-02-06 05:04:23 PM

Dr Dreidel: I prefer to have giant "NO ENTRY" signs over rights rather than empty lots where no one's gone...yet.


well in context of the gun debate, hamilton's ideas expressed via the 9th would state that regardless of how the 2nd is understood to be defined, it doesn't mean that there is no individual right to bear arms. that's something that people on both sides of the debate tend to not understand
 
2014-02-06 05:11:28 PM

sprawl15: Dr Dreidel: I prefer to have giant "NO ENTRY" signs over rights rather than empty lots where no one's gone...yet.

well in context of the gun debate, hamilton's ideas expressed via the 9th would state that regardless of how the 2nd is understood to be defined, it doesn't mean that there is no individual right to bear arms. that's something that people on both sides of the debate tend to not understand


I think it's almost the opposite.  By explicitly defining a right to bear arms, you are implicitly limiting it.  By using that definition to issue regulations on that right, you are explicitly limiting it.

Hmm.

I guess it would follow that any regulation of natural rights should be unconstitutional.
 
2014-02-06 05:15:04 PM
Put another way, if a right can be regulated or even revoked, because we live in a society... Well, how is it still a right?

Because I could still do that thing if society collapsed or something?

"Just when these American citizens needed their rights most, the government took them away. And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. "  -- St. Carlin
 
2014-02-06 05:18:04 PM

sendtodave: I think it's almost the opposite. By explicitly defining a right to bear arms, you are implicitly limiting it. By using that definition to issue regulations on that right, you are explicitly limiting it.

Hmm.


This is where that debate came from, even in 1789.

Some believe, to borrow your phrase, that "y explicitly defining rights, you're limiting them", and others believe that "to not enumerate a right is to forsake it". As I said, if the freedom of the press hadn't been explicitly delineated (even though it had been under the Articles of Confederation), do you think we'd still have it in 2014?

Hell, we almost lost it in 180[something] - the Alien and Sedition Acts - and that was WITH the First in place.

// it's a debate that I don't expect to resolve any time soon
 
2014-02-06 05:19:05 PM

sendtodave: Put another way, if a right can be regulated or even revoked, because we live in a society... Well, how is it still a right?


the idea is that the government regulates the interaction of your rights with others' rights. my right to shoot a gun and your right to not live next door to some asshole who shoots a gun in his backyard intersect. the regulation determines whose right has primacy based on societical value; basic social contract stuff.

the regulation of rights, then is based on the idea of triage; you cannot give everybody total freedom, but the government can at least try to provide as much freedom as possible and limit the intrusion on individual rights to the amount necessary to ensure a free society

though i doubt any person on the planet would say that is what we are actually doing, that's the idea i would like to think is behind the madness
 
2014-02-06 05:19:44 PM

sendtodave: Put another way, if a right can be regulated or even revoked, because we live in a society... Well, how is it still a right?


Because a right being inherent is not the same as it being unlimited.
 
2014-02-06 05:29:18 PM

soporific: Actually, the only one posting a crazy wall of text fit for Facebook is you. This statement does not reflect what actually happened, it is just an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

And my original positon was all about Open Carry. I asked him to provide any citations that demonstrate Open Carry danger. Not people accidentally shooting themselves, but Open Carry. He made a specific claim on a specific issue and I asked him to support that specific claim. he did not do so, but used a totally different set of circumstances and just assumed it proved his point. It didn't.

It is also worth pointing out the percentage of people who don't shoot themselves, because if you're going to argue against open carry using stories of people shooting themselves, then lets look at the numbers. What percent of gun owners accidentally shoot themselves? What percent don't? If the percent who don't are very, very high, then again, your "evidence" doesn't support your claim.

And yes, I do see the emotional hyperventilation about guns to be the equivalent of the emotional hyperventilation about gay marriage. Both the anti-gun and anti-gay arguments involve a lot of emotion and unsubstantiated claims. Or the "evidence" doesn't actually support the claims being made.


No, you are making up the argument about open carry.  He said he was against people being armed in public in general, not the concept of open carry.  I am not anti-gun, but I don't like the idea of every jackass I see texting while driving also walking around with a loaded weapon.  Obviously, having a gun in public is more dangerous than having a gay marriage in public.  It doesn't matter if the majority of gun owners don't kill people on accident because some gun owners do.  As far as I know, no one has been accidentally killed by gay marriage.  Do you have any evidence of this?  If not, then you must accept the premise that walking around with a loaded gun is a greater danger than gay marriage.  There is no emotion behind this statement at all.  Speaking of emotion, if you were able to control your internet rage, slow down, and actually read the posts, you might realize you are simply attacking a straw man of your own invention.
 
2014-02-06 05:30:56 PM

sprawl15: sendtodave: Put another way, if a right can be regulated or even revoked, because we live in a society... Well, how is it still a right?

the idea is that the government regulates the interaction of your rights with others' rights. my right to shoot a gun and your right to not live next door to some asshole who shoots a gun in his backyard intersect. the regulation determines whose right has primacy based on societical value; basic social contract stuff.

the regulation of rights, then is based on the idea of triage; you cannot give everybody total freedom, but the government can at least try to provide as much freedom as possible and limit the intrusion on individual rights to the amount necessary to ensure a free society

though i doubt any person on the planet would say that is what we are actually doing, that's the idea i would like to think is behind the madness


Well, sure, that makes sense, but if the social contract trumps natural rights (and it makes sense that it should do so), why are natural rights even a big deal?  Sure, we have them, but we can never fully exercise of express them, as long as we are living in society.

And we can't exactly just up and leave society any more.

It also stands to reason, then, that as time goes on, and the more there are of us living closer together, the more rights would be restricted.    Again, all eye-poking aside, there really are more restrictions in a place like New York than a place like Nowhere, KS.  Again, it makes sense that there would be.

And there are more person restrictions in China then there are in the US, though their Constitution is modeled after ours in many ways.

I mean, we can play word games, but "greater good  >  individual rights" seems to be all that needs to be said.
 
2014-02-06 05:32:37 PM

WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero. Same thing that happens to Teabaggers who differ on some issues.


Of course, the people who demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero are usually conservatives that can go fark themselves.
 
2014-02-06 05:37:58 PM

TheBigJerk: HeartBurnKid: WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero

For some reason, most of those people (at least most of the ones I hear from) are conservative.

/libby lib lib
//just fine with open carry

Concern trolls are just so VERY concerned.  Plenty of Democrats are pro-gun, only the NRA's partisan and racism-fueled psychoses say otherwise.


Remember folks, the NRA financially supported the only candidate to actually SIGN any sort of ban on guns in the most recent Presidential election. It must have been a coincidence that he was a Republican.
 
2014-02-06 05:40:12 PM

sendtodave: why are natural rights even a big deal? Sure, we have them, but we can never fully exercise of express them, as long as we are living in society.


it's in context of what came before

your rights are innate to your self, and it is of your own volition that you give them up to enter the social contract and your own decisions via voting representation into office that determine the nature of society

before this, the idea of rights were at best defined as coming from a sovereign or religion. you could own your land, but it was ultimately the king's land since your 'right' to own it came from the king. you could be king, but your 'right' to be king came from god and the church could take it away if you strayed. that's why the constitution goes out of its way bending over backwards to use language that states the government shall not infringe upon your right rather than the government shall not take away your right - it never granted it, and it likewise cannot take it away. it can only infringe, entering into your rights as a foreign object

that doesn't seem like a big deal nowadays, but it was a monstrous philosophical shift at the time. sadly, it's largely forgotten now

sendtodave: And we can't exactly just up and leave society any more.


that's part of why despite my incredible respect for the founders and the concepts that the nation was founded upon, i think originalists are dickheads. society has changed, and society needs to sit down and decide how to deal with the changes with a firm philosophical understanding of what exactly is going on if it wants to even maintain a facade of living up to those original lofty ideals
 
2014-02-06 05:49:04 PM

Frank N Stein: You're getting upset. You should probably get off the internet for a bit and calm down.


Sorry, I keep forgetting that this cowardly, passive-aggressive silliness is your only schtick. I've farkied you to make sure I don't make that mistake yet again, though, so no worries.
 
2014-02-06 06:24:07 PM

joness0154: Mary Shepard


So what you're saying is that if she had a big burly man-friend with her, this wouldn't have happened.  Or maybe a pit bull, or something.  Maybe we should be lobbying to allow people to hang out in churches with attack dogs, or bodyguards, or baseball bats... or any other of the 10000 completely random things that could have made this particularly bad day go down differently.
 
2014-02-06 06:35:47 PM

soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: soporific: demaL-demaL-yeH: I said: Having firearms in public increases the danger to yourself and the public.
You demanded citations, so I blasted them at you.
Quit whining, sniveling, and trying to move the goalpost, go slink off to the corner, and stay there until you can acknowledge you done been whupped on your own terms.

You have yet to defend the "in public" part of your argument. Some of these happened in private. Others happened in places without open carry.

Show me incidents that arose from actual open carry, the kind advocated for by Wendy Davis, and show me how they made things worse for those places that enacted them, you'll have a point. Otherwise, it is you who are moving the goalposts by refusing to provide the citations that support the specific point that you are making.

The argument is about Open Carry. Your claims about Open Carry need citations.

Look upthread: I said walking around armed in public increases the danger to yourself and to the public.
You challenged my statement, demanding evidence.
I gave you evidence.

Now get yourself over to the corner, whining goalpost mover.

I'm not moving the goalposts. You claimed to be able to kick a field goal. I asked you to demonstrate, and you grabbed a basketball.

Your "evidence" was a general google search with the tems "shot himself" not "Open Carry." Your evidence was bad. It did not support the claim you made that "walking around armed in public increases the danger to yourself and to the public."

If you want to prove that Open Carry will make things dangerous, try finding articles about actual open carry incidents. Show me places in which there was Open Carry and how there was an increase in shootings. Show me actual stats regarding the specific act of Open Carry.

That's what you failed to show. You are so convinced that your "evidence" backed you up, but did you even read any of the links? Did you even look? If you want to make a case against a specific action, people be ...


Quit adding conditions. You asked for evidence that firearms in public made you and the public less safe and I linked to google news articles that demonstrate that painfully obvious fact in black, white, and blood.
And it's just obstinate, willful ignorance on your part that keeps you in denial.

Back to the corner with you.
 
2014-02-06 06:37:52 PM

sprawl15: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people


When did I say that it did?
 
2014-02-06 06:39:28 PM

HeadLever: When did I say that it did?


HeadLever: Yeah, why would it make a difference if something was codified in the BoR. I mean, it is only paper that some guy wrote on a few hundred years ago and serves as our foundation for our government. Nothing substantial about that at all.

Sorry, I didn't know you were being a comedian.

 
2014-02-06 06:51:24 PM

lilplatinum: Free process was always narrowly defined and generally limited to family in procreation when it was created, information privacy was never part of it.  I think it should be, and maybe future cases will expand it, but that wouldn't be a constitutional erosion.


And that is where context of having an enumerated right being explicitly described can provide direction to the scope and breadth of its intended reach.  You don't have that with unenumerated rights
 
2014-02-06 06:52:28 PM
i will say it is hilarious to see "some are more equal than others" out in the wild though
 
2014-02-06 06:54:15 PM

sprawl15: HeadLever: When did I say that it did?

HeadLever: Yeah, why would it make a difference if something was codified in the BoR. I mean, it is only paper that some guy wrote on a few hundred years ago and serves as our foundation for our government. Nothing substantial about that at all.

Sorry, I didn't know you were being a comedian.


Nope try again.
 
2014-02-06 06:56:06 PM

sprawl15: i will say it is hilarious to see "some are more equal than others" out in the wild though


You resorting to strawmen now?
 
2014-02-06 06:58:23 PM

karmaceutical: joness0154: Mary Shepard

So what you're saying is that if she had a big burly man-friend with her, this wouldn't have happened.  Or maybe a pit bull, or something.  Maybe we should be lobbying to allow people to hang out in churches with attack dogs, or bodyguards, or baseball bats... or any other of the 10000 completely random things that could have made this particularly bad day go down differently.


Nope. What I'm saying is she should've been allowed to defend herself using a firearm consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

Thankfully the courts now agree with that...though it took 2 women being violently assaulted before they ruled on it.

The right to self-defense doesn't stop at the edge of your property.
 
2014-02-06 07:05:18 PM

HeadLever: You resorting to strawmen now?


considering you are literally construing the enumeration of certain rights to disparage others right here:

HeadLever: And that is where context of having an enumerated right being explicitly described can provide direction to the scope and breadth of its intended reach. You don't have that with unenumerated rights

 
2014-02-06 07:37:37 PM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: If you're not a felon and you have the proper license and have paid the fees, you most certainly can own an automatic firearm.

Provided, of course, that it's legal in your state, which it isn't in my state.  Despite the fact that they are very highly regulated at the federal level, and the supply is essentially frozen, because no new machine guns may be added to the NFA registry.  Since 1986.

Which is why transferable M-16 which should be worth about $1,000 is now worth $15-16,000.  So only the very rich can afford them.


Of course, we can't possibly let scary dark people have them, that is just too wrong. Think about the children.

Since they were highly regulated and taxed there have been TWO murders by legally owned machine guns, both committed by Police Officers. (At $.50 to $10.00 a round [9mm -

DamnYankees: Doom MD: DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: Like I have said, in rural areas, they can give guns away as party favors for all I care. Gun control is probably a good idea for large, densely packed cities like NY, but only if law enforcement is tight to being with, like NY.

This is basically my stance - I'm in favor of making gun control a local issue, like any other policy. It makes sense in some areas, not others. This is why I believe the 2nd amendment is a bad idea.

But that makes me a gun grabber, I guess, since I'm in favor of local control.

Fantastic, so gun owners need to be aware of the legal status of their firearm while driving through dozens of townships on their way to the range

How is this different than any other laws? Different jurisdictions  are all allowed to have different rules on what you may or may not possess within its border. Some jurisdictions  say you can posses wild animals, some say no. Some jurisdictions say that cars can have gas emissions up to X, some say Y. Some jurisdictions allow the possession of certain chemicals, some don't.

These types of distinctions are everywhere. People need to obey the law - as the old saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Why should guns get some kind of special exemption from this general idea?


.50BMG] I couldn't afford to shoot one if I had it.)
 
2014-02-06 07:49:02 PM

skozlaw: demaL-demaL-yeH: Go get trained and competent before you inflict your armed self on the public.

If YOU want to play with YOUR guns YOU go get the training on YOUR dime. I'm neither paying for your cowardice nor will I be mandated to participate in it.


How can a Liberal complain about "Abstinence Only" sex education yet preach "Ignorance Only" gun safety? I was under the impression you people were for "Gun Safety", "for the Children© ".
 
2014-02-06 08:00:22 PM

RevMercutio: TheBigJerk: HeartBurnKid: WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero

For some reason, most of those people (at least most of the ones I hear from) are conservative.

/libby lib lib
//just fine with open carry

Concern trolls are just so VERY concerned.  Plenty of Democrats are pro-gun, only the NRA's partisan and racism-fueled psychoses say otherwise.

Remember folks, the NRA financially supported the only candidate to actually SIGN any sort of ban on guns in the most recent Presidential election. It must have been a coincidence that he was a Republican.


Hush it up with that logic you, we need moar fear of scary libs!  fear fear fear!

I'm considering replacing the word "television" with "fearbox" in my personal lexicon, with specific connotations to "news" media, what do you think?
 
2014-02-06 08:13:30 PM
She ever gets tired of running Texas, she'll make a fine VP or Presidential candidate someday.
 
2014-02-06 09:34:42 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: Dancin_In_Anson: cman: If people had their way there it would he required for one to carry a gun in public.

What's the crime rate like in Kennesaw?

They don't have such a wild hog problem


Wild hogs commit many crimes?
 
2014-02-06 09:36:53 PM

gothelder: Why is it that if you are for the second amendment you are automatically a right winger, I am a definite left winger and and have enough firepower to take out any threat from up to 500 yards away to right in my face.

(I would have a nuke if I could get away with it.)


Why?  Nukes are overpriced and come with a crappy warrenty.
 
2014-02-07 01:55:24 AM

WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero. Same thing that happens to Teabaggers who differ on some issues.


What exactly do you mean by "the same thing?"

Because unless I've missed some major backlash,  the only opposition I've noticed is some gun-control activists saying "we think she's wrong on this issue." I don't see any fans turning against her, or calling her a DINO, or any kind of demands for ideological purity at all.

Am I mistaken, or is this nothing like the Teabaggers?
 
2014-02-07 08:19:17 AM

Hickory-smoked: WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero. Same thing that happens to Teabaggers who differ on some issues.

What exactly do you mean by "the same thing?"

Because unless I've missed some major backlash,  the only opposition I've noticed is some gun-control activists saying "we think she's wrong on this issue." I don't see any fans turning against her, or calling her a DINO, or any kind of demands for ideological purity at all.

Am I mistaken, or is this nothing like the Teabaggers?


You're not mistaken.  WTF is a Fark Independent™.
 
2014-02-07 11:15:54 AM

HeartBurnKid: Hickory-smoked: WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero. Same thing that happens to Teabaggers who differ on some issues.

What exactly do you mean by "the same thing?"

Because unless I've missed some major backlash,  the only opposition I've noticed is some gun-control activists saying "we think she's wrong on this issue." I don't see any fans turning against her, or calling her a DINO, or any kind of demands for ideological purity at all.

Am I mistaken, or is this nothing like the Teabaggers?

You're not mistaken.  WTF is a Fark Independent™.


I see... Projection, then.
 
2014-02-07 11:18:43 AM

Hickory-smoked: HeartBurnKid: Hickory-smoked: WTF Indeed: xanadian: Uh. She's Texan. Her open-carry stance surprises people??

It surprises people that demand purity on stances if you're going to be a liberal hero. Same thing that happens to Teabaggers who differ on some issues.

What exactly do you mean by "the same thing?"

Because unless I've missed some major backlash,  the only opposition I've noticed is some gun-control activists saying "we think she's wrong on this issue." I don't see any fans turning against her, or calling her a DINO, or any kind of demands for ideological purity at all.

Am I mistaken, or is this nothing like the Teabaggers?

You're not mistaken.  WTF is a Fark Independent™.

I see... Projection, then.


Along with a healthy dose of "Both Sides Are Bad, So Vote Republican".
 
Displayed 42 of 542 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report