Republicans Fear ‘Extinction in the Suburbs’ Over Gun Control

[Jazzhead]

I wonder if you’ll be humble enough to admit you were don’t next November?

Hell, I will jump for joy if the GOP can manage to keep the Presidency and Senate.   But the chances don't look good.   As I said before, if Trump backs the gun extremists,  he loses the election because the GP wants something done about mass shootings, and if he rejects the gun extremists, he loses the election because his base will be fractured.   The libs, of course, know that, which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.   

[txradioguy]

Hell, I will jump for joy if the GOP can manage to keep the Presidency and Senate.   But the chances don't look good.   As I said before, if Trump backs the gun extremists,  he loses the election because the GP wants something done about mass shootings, and if he rejects the gun extremists, he loses the election because his base will be fractured.   The libs, of course, know that, which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.

Again you're trying to corrupt the language and redefine who the extremists are just like a typical Alinskyite and you don't get to do that.

The extremists are the Democrats anti-gun Libs like yourself and every Presidential candidate with a D by their name.

They are the ones that want to punish law abiding citizens the poor and minorities by making it too expensive or too restrictive to own a gun for their own defense.

The ones that want to do away with the 2A implement an assault weapons ban...require meaningless and ineffective "expanded" backgorund checks or your pet project registration and insurance...THAT is the extremist view.

If Trump sides with people that think like you do on this issue...he's toast 15 months from now.

[rustynail]

 Republicans Face ‘Extinction'  Over Gun Control.

[Cyber Liberty]

Again you're trying to corrupt the language and redefine who the extremists are just like a typical Alinskyite and you don't get to do that.

The extremists are the Democrats anti-gun Libs like yourself and every Presidential candidate with a D by their name.

They are the ones that want to punish law abiding citizens the poor and minorities by making it too expensive or too restrictive to own a gun for their own defense.

The ones that want to do away with the 2A implement an assault weapons ban...require meaningless and ineffective "expanded" backgorund checks or your pet project registration and insurance...THAT is the extremist view.

If Trump sides with people that think like you do on this issue...he's toast 15 months from now.

Shhh!  You might get accused of bullying Trump if you say he'll lose.

[sneakypete]

... which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.

@Jazzhead

No,they love them because they KNOW they will never get elected anywhere without a state of anarchy existing,and the people screaming for politicians to "do something,do ANYTHING,but stop the violence and restore order!"

Which is something they have had wet dreams thinking about their whole lives. They don't really want to be representatives. They want nothing less than becoming "Maximum Leaders" on the order of Mussolini,Stalin,and Hitler.

[Smokin Joe]

Hell, I will jump for joy if the GOP can manage to keep the Presidency and Senate.   But the chances don't look good.   As I said before, if Trump backs the gun extremists,  he loses the election because the GP wants something done about mass shootings, and if he rejects the gun extremists, he loses the election because his base will be fractured.   The libs, of course, know that, which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.

If Trump backs the gun extremists, then we're fighting to keep our Rights, and he gets the boot.

No one who would take a fundamental Civil Right is anything less than an Extremist.
If you are referring to the millions of people who simply want to retain their Rights, their property, and their means of protecting themselves and their posterity as extremists, you are the extremist who would infringe a Right millions have died to protect for the acts of two individuals and a handful of victims.

You, who daily on this forum advocate for the choice to murder babies in the womb, have a lot of damned gall calling anyone here who backs the letter of the US Constitution an extremist.

[txradioguy]

The libs, of course, know that, which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.

Then why didn't the get anywhere with their intended desire to limit and/or ban guns after the 14 different mass shootings that happened in the 8 years Obama was in office?

[txradioguy]

You, who daily on this forum advocate for the choice to murder babies in the womb, have a lot of damned gall calling anyone here who backs the letter of the US Constitution an extremist.

@Smokin Joe you made me think of a question for @Jazzhead about a women's right to choose.

Ok Jazzy riddle me this...

Do you believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not to defend her own body? And in the manner she chooses? And the government should not interfere with that decision?

[Smokin Joe]

Then why didn't the get anywhere with their intended desire to limit and/or ban guns after the 14 different mass shootings that happened in the 8 years Obama was in office?

Sadly, the trump Administration has already banned a gun stock that the Obama Administration had ruled as perfectly fine.
The Obamites knew resistance would be severe. What the Left can't get the Right oft provides.

Hayfoot, Strawfoot, down the road to totalitarianism.

[Jazzhead]

Again you're trying to corrupt the language and redefine who the extremists are just like a typical Alinskyite and you don't get to do that.

The extremists are the Democrats anti-gun Libs like yourself and every Presidential candidate with a D by their name.

They are the ones that want to punish law abiding citizens the poor and minorities by making it too expensive or too restrictive to own a gun for their own defense.

The ones that want to do away with the 2A implement an assault weapons ban...require meaningless and ineffective "expanded" backgorund checks or your pet project registration and insurance...THAT is the extremist view.

If Trump sides with people that think like you do on this issue...he's toast 15 months from now.

There are extremists on both sides.  For purposes of this discussion,  what I mean by "gun extremists" are those 2A advocates who reject any reasonable regulation of firearms as an unlawful "infringement".    My view, as I've said repeatedly, is that of Justice Scalia:  the individual right exists under the Constitution,  and, like all other Constitutionally protected individual rights,  is subject to reasonable regulation. 

If my support for Justice Scalia makes me a "gun-grabber", as I've repeatedly been labeled,  then permit me to use the term "gun extremists" as I've defined it above.     

[Jazzhead]

Do you believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not to defend her own body?

Yes.  And ironically, you have just made the case for permitting a woman to choose abortion.   Self-determination.   That's the natural right that the Constitution protects.   

[txradioguy]

There are extremists on both sides.  For purposes of this discussion,  what I mean by "gun extremists" are those 2A advocates who reject any reasonable regulation of firearms as an unlawful "infringement".    My view, as I've said repeatedly, is that of Justice Scalia:  the individual right exists under the Constitution,  and, like all other Constitutionally protected individual rights,  is subject to reasonable regulation. 

If my support for Justice Scalia makes me a "gun-grabber", as I've repeatedly been labeled,  then permit me to use the term "gun extremists" as I've defined it above.   

Again...that's not extremism...that's your opinion.  YOu're trying to corrupt the language and turn the good law abiding people that believe in the Constitution as written into the fringe radicals and that is not nor will it ever be the case.  I don't care how many times you use that Liberal/Alinsky tactic.

You're not being honest in what Scalia said.  I showed you the exact thing he said and you unsurprisingly passed right over it.  You don't support Scalia in Heller...you supported the dissent.

Guess you hoped we'd forget that you did that huh?

[Smokin Joe]

There are extremists on both sides.  For purposes of this discussion,  what I mean by "gun extremists" are those 2A advocates who reject any reasonable regulation of firearms as an unlawful "infringement".    My view, as I've said repeatedly, is that of Justice Scalia:  the individual right exists under the Constitution,  and, like all other Constitutionally protected individual rights,  is subject to reasonable regulation. 

If my support for Justice Scalia makes me a "gun-grabber", as I've repeatedly been labeled,  then permit me to use the term "gun extremists" as I've defined it above.   

You aren't supporting Justice Scalia, you are using him as an excuse to try to walk all over the Right. We aren't talking about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, Any reasonable regulations were done long ago, like prohibitions on shooting up dance halls and firing into the air (because the descending bullet just might kill someone). Anything more isn't reasonable.

[Jazzhead]

If Trump backs the gun extremists, then we're fighting to keep our Rights, and he gets the boot.

No one who would take a fundamental Civil Right is anything less than an Extremist.
If you are referring to the millions of people who simply want to retain their Rights, their property, and their means of protecting themselves and their posterity as extremists, you are the extremist who would infringe a Right millions have died to protect for the acts of two individuals and a handful of victims.

You, who daily on this forum advocate for the choice to murder babies in the womb, have a lot of damned gall calling anyone here who backs the letter of the US Constitution an extremist.

I not only have the gall,  I'll apply the term to you personally - you're an Extremist @Smokin Joe .   Now go wear the label with pride.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Again...that's not extremism...that's your opinion.  YOu're trying to corrupt the language and turn the good law abiding people that believe in the Constitution as written into the fringe radicals and that is not nor will it ever be the case.  I don't care how many times you use that Liberal/Alinsky tactic.

You're not being honest in what Scalia said.  I showed you the exact thing he said and you unsurprisingly passed right over it.  You don't support Scalia in Heller...you supported the dissent.

Guess you hoped we'd forget that you did that huh?

I'm proud to be called a "gun extremist" by an "abortion extremist."  It means I'm doing it right.

[txradioguy]

Yes.  And ironically, you have just made the case for permitting a woman to choose abortion.   Self-determination.   That's the natural right that the Constitution protects.

Answer the whole question I posed chucklehead.  You don't get to cherry pick on this.  And I did no such thing where abortion is concerned.  RKBA is a Constitutionally protected right.  Abortion is bad law (admitted by the clerk that wrote it) that you Liberals cling to like it's written in stone.

So again...answer the WHOLE question.  Don't dissemble or toss in a straw man...focus.

Do you believe a woman has a right to choose whether or not to defend her own body? And in the manner she chooses? And the government should not interfere with that decision?

[skeeter]

Hell, I will jump for joy if the GOP can manage to keep the Presidency and Senate.   But the chances don't look good.   As I said before, if Trump backs the gun extremists,  he loses the election because the GP wants something done about mass shootings, and if he rejects the gun extremists, he loses the election because his base will be fractured.   The libs, of course, know that, which is why they love these mass shootings for the opportunity they present.

Why are those who want gun laws to remain where they have been for 225 years now considered "extremists", while those who seek to dramatically curtail them are not?

[Cyber Liberty]

Why are those who want gun laws to remain where they have been for 225 years now considered "extremists", while those who seek to dramatically curtail them are not?

Because "Progressives."  I choose to be a stick-in-the-mud about guns.  Hands off mine, Keyboard Komandos.  It's that easy.

[txradioguy]

You aren't supporting Justice Scalia, you are using him as an excuse to try to walk all over the Right. We aren't talking about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, Any reasonable regulations were done long ago, like prohibitions on shooting up dance halls and firing into the air (because the descending bullet just might kill someone). Anything more isn't reasonable.

@Smokin Joe
 

As I pointed out and linked to yesterday...the "reasonable regulation" Jazzy like to point to but never expand upon has to do with carrying privately owned weapons into Government buildings and concealed carry permits.

He vomits out "Scalia was for reasonable regulation" and hopes that none of us will or have in the past done research on Scalia's majority opinion to see what and how Scalia defined it.

I did.  Jazzy is being dishonest by omission.

[edpc]

My view, as I've said repeatedly, is that of Justice Scalia:  the individual right exists under the Constitution, and, like all other Constitutionally protected individual rights, is subject to reasonable regulation.

OK, but what the red flag laws are going to do is regulate 2A rights on a perceived state of mind. There won’t be a heavy burden on the government to prove their case. The burden will be on the red flag target. They’ll just use ‘public safety’ to chip away at 2A, the same way they’ve used national security to intrude on 1A, 4A, and 5A - and probably others. Most ‘extremists’ know where this leads, hence the heel digging.

[Cyber Liberty]

OK, but what the red flag laws are going to do is regulate 2A rights on a perceived state of mind. There won’t be a heavy burden on the government to prove their case. The burden will be on the red flag target. They’ll just use ‘public safety’ to chip away at 2A, the same way they’ve used national security to intrude on 1A, 4A, and 5A - and probably others. Most ‘extremists’ know where this leads, hence the heel digging.

I thought we defeated the Nazis and the Soviets....

[txradioguy]

Why are those who want gun laws to remain where they have been for 225 years now considered "extremists", while those who seek to dramatically curtail them are not?

@skeeter

Because we don't believe they way he does. 

Standing up for the 2A = extremism

Being a gun grabbing...gun banning Liberal or RINO = rational sensible through on the subject.

[Smokin Joe]

I not only have the gall,  I'll apply the term to you personally - you're an Extremist @Smokin Joe .   Now go wear the label with pride.   

I would, (As Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no Vice.") except that to let you corrupt the language to describe someone who only advocates for their Civil Rights as an "extremist" in this day and age of corrupted language would paint me as a violent and dangerous person in current usage, and I will resist you pulling that semantic rabbit our of your warm, dark  hat, as well.

I simply want to keep my enumerated Constitutional Rights uninfringed, just like the Amendment says.

That is only "extremism" in the face of the howling mob who want to interfere with my (our) Rights.

Considering millions of Americans have died defending that Right along with the rest of the United States Constitution, I would hardly call my stance "extremist".

[Cyber Liberty]

There's only one reason this thread remains a dumpster fire.  It's the usual reason most gun threads end up being dumpster fires.

[rustynail]

We must be the 'Better Man'.