Childhood’s Greatest Danger: The Data on Kids and Gun Violence

I wasn’t claiming that the NRA was the biggest purchaser of influence.
One of our politicians (the Minister for Agriculture) was given a cheque by a mining magnate as an award “for being a champion of farming”.
There was an uproar and he politely declined it after saying he’d spend it on improvements to his farm.
There was no way he’d be allowed to keep it. Bribes are a no no.

 

Are you claiming the NRA bribes politicians by supporting those who protect a fundamental constitutional right?

 

So what? You post all the time for gun rights, but dismiss arms rights, as the 2A is about.
Because you have so many excuses for infringements.
You have your line in the sand for infringement of arms bearing. It's quite a hypocritical position.

Everything I post is truthful. You just don't like it because you can't admit you are for infringements. So ad homs is your means to justify your support of infringements that is against the 2A.

 

Your definition of arms is specious in the context of the second amendment and your arguments are dishonest. You pretend that your desire to ban lots of firearms that are clearly within the meaning of "arms" in a second amendment context is no different than those who think the second does not protect ICBMs or weaponized anthrax.

 

LOL. I've given you the legal definition of arms.
Why is the law specious to you?
Automatic rifles? Specious to you? M50 cal specious to you?

As for the 2 weapons you mentioned, you've made them up as arms. Why? That is an untruth? Intentional. Sad.

 

you didn't give me a relevant definition of arms that is in the context of what the founders were talking about. You ignore the natural right that serves as the foundation of the second amendment while also ignoring "keep and bear" This sort of mistake is common from those who are trying to arguing an absurd position while not having any education in constitutional theory .

 

The NRA has no interest in gun rights. It's a broken baby boomer gun club nothing more.

Sounds like he kept it.

 

The threshold for what arms are covered by the second amendment are arms kept for a lawful purpose.

 

Arms are arms. As legally defined.
Games are games. As you like to play.
I ignore nothing, not even all the games you play so that you can feel good about all the arms you support.
It's the mistake that is common from those who are trying to argue an absurd position. Your words, your ad homs.
Because you can't justify the position you have for infringements.

 

we are discussing constitutional interpretation and you are on record craving infringements on items you claim make "mass murder" easy without being able to tell us what that includes. Since I have seen your posts on this board, you have played the game that "your infringements are just as bad as mine" bullshit. and you throw ad hom around apparently hoping to pander to the moderators because your posts don't understand that term.

 

Do you think that red voters vote for red candidates in red states because of NRA donations?

The NRA could disappear overnight and election results wouldn't change.

 

We are discussion the 2A. "Shall not be Infringed".
You support infringements. I support infringements, just not the untruths you keep posting about, but you do that to deflect from your own guilt of supporting infringements.

 

Sure they would. Many who get bribed by the NRA would likely change their position. So votes will change.

 

I don't support any federal infringements. You want to infringe on items everyone sees as arms

You want to harass honest people buying any repeating firearm. I oppose that. so don't try to pretend that saying it might be ok to ban anthrax as being the same as you wanting to ban a 17 round GLOCK handgun

 

Are the voters getting bribed by the NRA, or are they voting for candidates that protect issues important to red voters like Second Amendment relayed issues?

 

So, your point why you support infringements, once again is based on an untruth.
Sad position, but it is yours.

 

The one's they vote for because they pretend to be for arms rights, but once the bribe money stops, then politicians will move to the next big bribery issue.

 

In USA, bribes are perfectly legal. But they can't be called bribes, so the masquerade them as donations.

 

Who infringes on owning automatic rifles? Federal.

 

you are trying to justify your extremist desire to infringe on commonly owned for lawful purpose firearms by claiming that is no different than those who see a legitimate power of state government to ban weaponized anthrax or thermo nuclear weapons. Its akin to someone who wants to ban almost all free speech saying that he's no different than someone who thinks snuff films or violent kiddie porn should be illegal.

 

and that is clearly unconstitutional. but you support it. I don't

 

Will red voters in Alabama or South Carolina stop voting for candidates who want to protect the Second? No matter who Bloomberg bribes there will always be another pro-2A Republican to vote for.

 

Will the government allow everything? No.
Can the government prohibit everything? No.

Where's the line to be drawn?

 

Yes, you do support infringements. 2A, " Shall not be infringed".
Your infringements are not better that any other infringements. Just different.

 

Society.
They determine the line in the sand. But with much disagreement. Have you noticed? It's been a hot topic for a while.