User

What false premise? The only thing dishonest here is your cowardly attempts to avoid answering for your stupid mention of viability.

LOL, you got caught saying something dumb, and my questions exposed that.

The argument isn't that this would be some kind of special privilege, it is that you claimed he would be above the law. I fully explained this in the post you just responded to already.

No, it doesn't. Those are entirely different comments you made, and now you are just trying to mash them together. Can you ever just be more honest?

So, no, you did not read it yet.

First, this has nothing to do with this discussion. Second, at the time of the 2nd Amendment, knowledge existed of repeating firearms. There was the Belton Gun and the Girardoni rifle... among others. Third, the concept of advancements in weaponry, including firearms, was well known. There is a reason they used "arms" instead of single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets when writing the Second Amendment, just like they didn't write the First Amendment only to include quill ink pens and parchment paper. This case had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It had to do with the ATF rewriting federal rules on interpreting what federal law defined as a machine gun. This ruling had to do with that process. If Congress wants to pass a law banning bump stocks, they certainly can and would almost certainly be upheld in the courts as Constitutional to do so. You are dishonestly changing your argument now. You did not claim they performed substantially the same as machine guns. You claimed that a bump stock converts them into machine guns.

So, you think they are crazy, you know they are wrong... its just that you don't want to tell them. That isn't what Hodad is doing here. He really thinks a woman can say she is a man and then a man can be pregnant... as he is using the term "pregnant person" and defending them. Hodad is the guy who believes in Bigfoot. You just don't want to say he is wrong. Except... you are on a public forum and do in fact engage in discussions here telling people, including me, they are wrong.

You really have an issue with reading comprehension. I did not say the two situations are "no different." I said any compulsion I or other Pro-Life folks have between the two situations is no different. There is some shocking lack of thought going on here, but it is not from me. Where was I asked to articulate the difference here or in other discussions, where was that a part of the discussion? There is no difference between sex and gender other than what you and others have invented in the last 5 minutes of human civilization. Doesn't mean I can't articulate it, it means I don't agree with it. Yet again, this concept of understanding and disagreement escapes you. Unlike you, I have the capacity to understand and accept what the views of others are, and disagree. The real problem here is that it is you who will play this game trying to say a woman can say she is a man and then a man can get pregnant... but never offer and meaningful definition of what a man or woman is then. What?! OMG, you will go to any length to just make up crap. What state allows this? I am not aware of any that do like this. LOL... you are not a serious person.

No, it doesn't. You have no understanding of how firearms function, how bump stocks function, or what the terms are to describe a semi-automatic firearm vs a machine gun.

You can try to insult me all you want, it doesn't do anything to change the stupidity and ignorance of your arguments here. Again, there were no school shootings in Uvdale or Sandyhook before there was either. Why don't you stop asking dumb questions, stop making up crap you don't know anything about, and try to frame up an intelligent response.

I see you have moved on from your lies without being man enough to acknowledge what you were doing. Instead, you don't even bother to quote me in your response here. I have no idea what you mean by a "real" background check, it seems you just want to make up some kind of impossible, burdensome bureaucracy that results in people having to wait years to get a gun.

You claim that he would be above the law because of them. How? Again, it is moving things to the federal courts. Are you now questioning the federal justice system?!

You have offered nothing here to explain why I have any misunderstandings. Viability is your big response? So, you are just fine with controlling women, forcing them to be pregnant, and banning all abortions after viability?

Yeah, OK. I have answered you repeatedly now and you ignore me, while you make up crap about things you clearly don't know.

Reality? No, there were not multiple SRO's at Sandy Hook, there was not even one. No armed response was there until police arrived after the shooting started. The entire point of risk management is to mitigate risks BEFORE they happen, not after. As I said from the beginning, if your argument is why bother with mitigating the risk because you don't think it is worth doing so... fine. That is a different discussion, but when you keep saying that we should put an SRO into a school after a shooting, that isn't very smart. The damage is already done. You either feel there is a risk worth mitigating or you don't and you can't pretend that a school that has not had a mass shooting somehow is not at risk of one... . What you are arguing is that after your family dies from carbon monoxide poisoning, then you should invest in a detector.

I did not dodge anything. I just explained why your question is dumb and you ignored it. I don't have to explain why there are no school shootings in 99% of the schools in the country. Just like Uvdale and Sandyhook, most have not experienced a school shooting until they do. Then it is too late. You don't wait until after a mass shooting at a school to then say, hey, we should put an SRO here. The purpose of an SRO is to help prevent one from ever occurring or to mitigate how bad they are if they do. Its as dumb as saying you don't need to wear a seatbelt because you have never been in a car crash or you don't need a carbon monoxide detector because you have never suffocated to death in your sleep yet....

It is a part of what I want, but not all I want. That was your lie. Be a man... or whatever you are and own up to that. No, background checks are no joke and if you really read my comments I clearly said: "Hold LEO accountable for their failures on background checks " That includes their failures to submit data to the system. We can improve the system so checks do not go to a 3 day mark, but those are rare and I literally just said to make them universal on all sales including private sales. Seriously, you did not even read what I wrote: "Mandatory background checks on all firearm sales" Talking to liberals like you on here is a complete waste of time. You are not being honest here, you don't read what I write... you just make crap up.

Did you read the Constitution yet? Hell, you don't even have to read the whole thing, just go to the section you brought up and you can clearly see the language that answers your question for you, shows how the way you asked it was skewed to begin with...

You did not even read my comments or are too dishonest to discuss them with me. That is not all I said at all. You have to lie and say I don't want change and then when I show you the change I want you have to lie in response to that.

The only difference between us is the stupid depravity of your view of the unborn child and that you are not honest enough to accept the Pro-Life position. You don't have to agree with it, but you can be honest enough to accept what it is instead of pushing these stupid responses. If you did, then you would know that whatever compulsion I have or other Pro-Life people have to tell strangers how to feel about killing their unborn children is no different than if they were killing their 5 year olds. I presume you want to tell people how to feel about that, right? That it should be wrong to kill 5 year olds? Truth is universal. Pointing it out is not controlling other people. You have always struggled to grasp the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate that a woman wants to call herself a man and pretend to be one, but that doesn't actually make her one, and I don't have to pretend/accept that lie as true. Nothing silly about it and you avoided the question. A parent can't simply get out of child support. There are robust laws in place to compel parents to continue to have to care for children they do not want nor want to be a part of their lives. So... do you want to use government force to compel folks to do this? Do you want to enslave fathers to have to care for children they don't want?

Yeah, I know what you said, but that doesn't make it any more honest or accurate. Here is change I support: 1. Remove "gun-free" zones and allow people with concealed carry permits to carry concealed in schools 2. Allow teachers who wish to be armed, to do so. It can include some minimum standards and safety practices 3. States that are "may issue" states that basically don't allow for concealed carry at all should change to "shall issue" so that people can reasonably obtain concealed carry permits 4. States with high restrictions on where you can carry concealed to the point of absurdity or impracticality should loosen those restrictions effectively ending gun free zones that only stop law abiding people from carrying firearms 5. Mandatory background checks on all firearm sales, BUT open up NICS use to individuals so they can do this on their own and not have to go through an FFL which is a bureaucracy that costs time and $$$ and is not always available in rural areas or smaller towns 6. Red Flag laws, BUT with clear and compelling language that guarantees a path to challenge them and obtain firearms taken 7. Enact universal concealed carry reciprocity across state lines 8. Hold LEO accountable for their failures on background checks and failing to follow up on known criminals or people with issues that could make them deadly threats 9. Increase security in schools with more SRO's and better plans for physical security and its implementation 10. Less "restorative justice" in schools and more punishment and removal of known problem children or those with gang affiliations 11. Stop electing left-wing soft on crime DA's who are more interested in "equity" than justice that they do not go after violent criminals or support no-bail policies that let violent criminals or known gang members back on the streets... 12. Increase penalties for firearm laws that are broken and actually start enforcing the laws currently on the books better 13. More teeth behind Emergency Protection Orders, if people are a proven threat to another, need more than a piece of paper warning them to stay away

If Putin cracks, you don't have to ask for the land back, you take it back. And it is comical that you are here mocking that, when your bad mockery is literally no better than what you want to do. You want to surrender to Putin and then issue hollow threats. No, that is not what you have said about negotiation. You flip-flop on it being the best after I repeatedly challenged you by saying it was the only way out. I already defeated this claim of yours, and now you are back to making it again. No, it is not the only way out, you are just completely ignoring the discussions we have already had now where I have outlined this already. And you have yet to explain what negotiation means beyond Ukraine surrendering. No, for you, it is about surrendering to Russia, because you support Russia winning. Peace is not obtained by surrendering to the aggressors. You only invite more aggression. You are not interested in peace at all. Well, they talk tough to dissuade Russia from invading, but they were all pleading for peace as well. You ignore this because you push lies to support and justify Russia and now you want to surrender to them. You are already expecting them to negotiate peace in a humiliating fashion. You want Ukraine to surrender.

Again, history proves otherwise. The war can become too costly, too long, too much for even Russia. No, that is not all you have said. You continue to be wishy washy and flip flop back and forth on saying that this is the only way out. You changed it to "best" after my repeated challenges and now you are back to only. At this point, I conclude you are willing to say anything to support a Russian victory here. You continue to be two-faced as well. You won't support Ukraine now, but sure, you will threaten Russia that we will support them later? It makes zero sense, and you keep ignoring this every time I point it out. This is a discussion between you and I and YOUR positions. I am challenging YOU and what YOU are saying. Again... You continue to be two-faced as well. You won't support Ukraine now, but sure, you will threaten Russia that we will support them later? It makes zero sense, and you keep ignoring this every time I point it out. It gets really old that people like you ignore things already posted. I already shared the link here showing that Ukraine was wanting peace BEFORE Russia invaded. You post this revisionist history here, it is dishonest.

Where do you get that nothing has changed? There has not been significant change because folks like you only want to focus on hating guns.

What exit ramp? They don't need you to give them an exit ramp... they are the ones pushing the war. They can exit whenever they want to. The question is, how are you convincing them to stop their war of aggression? The only thing I see you offering is surrender. Nothing magical about it. War is brutal and Ukraine will have to push and punish and fight for it. Unlike you, I support them and want NATO/US to continue supporting them in their efforts so they can. There is give and take going on here, Russia has not just held onto everything they have taken. Ukraine made a massive push back on them during the initial invasion, made some decent gains during their offensive, but now Russia is making some gains in their offensive as well. This notion that Russia simply holds what it has and lets nothing go or cant or Ukraine wont ever be able to push back is just wish casting on your part and exactly why I say you are practically supporting Russia. Certainly not if folks like you have their way. This is meaningless words with no substance behind them. Russia is not interested in peace. So now what? How? How could it have been stopped? Russia has been pushing on Ukraine for 10 years now. They took Crimea. They instigated a proxy war in the Donbas, and then launched a full scale invasion. The whole way Ukraine and the world were asking for peace.