Why bother with the GOP if this is all it has to offer?

[DadSmith]

I can count on zero fingers the number of trans- murderers I've dealt with. A hand full of robberies, including one who's African immigrant family did *not* take it well when they saw him dressed like a woman doing a robbery (more upset about that than the robbery, I think). I'm not real worried. I remember when INGO was all about 'bring it on Soiboy' and now you're scared the 2nd amendment applies to a group of people, some of whom are violent? I guess there's no way that line of thinking could go poorly. I wonder who does more shootings, trans- or incels? Maybe virgins shouldn't be eligible for legal gun ownership.

Jenner did buy a gun, IIRC. I'm surprised we're not all dead already.

So violent mentally ill people with firearms doesn't worry you. Gotcha.

 

[jamil]

So violent mentally ill people with firearms doesn't worry you. Gotcha.

Shouldn’t a person be adjudicated as being too dangerous to have 2A rights?

 

[DadSmith]

Shouldn’t a person be adjudicated as being too dangerous to have 2A rights?

Should the Tennessee school shooter have Been before she shot it up?

 

[jamil]

Should the Tennessee school shooter have Been before she shot it up?

If anyone were deemed to be dangerous she should have been. But you think that every trans person should have their rights taken away?

 

[DadSmith]

If anyone were deemed to be dangerous she should have been. But you think that every trans person should have their rights taken away?

Are all transgenders violent? Are all wanting to commit murder or beat people up because they disagree with them?

Is it lawful to threaten people with violence? Or do violence to others?
Is it lawful for a violent person to write a manifesto detailing how they are going to murder innocents, and why?
Would that be protected by the 1st Amendment? Since it is written document of one's feelings aka free expression.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Shouldn’t a person be adjudicated as being too dangerous to have 2A rights?

Not if you agree with President Trump.

 

[jamil]

Are all transgenders violent?

No.

Are all wanting to commit murder or beat people up because they disagree with them?

No.

Is it lawful to threaten people with violence?

No.

Or do violence to others?

No.

Is it lawful for a violent person to write a manifesto detailing how they are going to murder innocents, and why?

Yes.

Would that be protected by the 1st Amendment? Since it is written document of one's feelings aka free expression.

Yes.

But, being too violent to be allowed to exercise a basic human right is something that must be determined case by case. So what do you think about red flag laws? is it better to adjudicate case by case, or just say, no, we can't take chances with this whole group of people so we'll just blanket exclude them from this right.

 

[Twangbanger]

I wonder how many lines a 4473 form would have if "Indiana Values Voters" created it.

 

[jamil]

Not if you agree with President Trump.

First take their guns. Then due process. Because that's how due process works.

 

[jamil]

I wonder how many lines a 4473 form would have if "Indiana Values Voters" created it.

I feel like that number has to be something close to four thousand, four hundred seventy three.

 

[Kdf101]

This thread seems to have taken a turn where it is no longer about the OP’s post. Here is my final take on this, and then I am done with this thread, just seems to be too far off the rails of the original.
1. the GOP needs to recruit whoever they can that believe in freedom and less government.
2. I don’t give an effwhat sexual orientation, gender you think you are, etc. as long as you don’t force it on me.
3. Religion, in a personal sense is fine. I agree this country was founded on a strong bed of Christianity, but they also didn’t require you to be one to live here.
4. I am suspicious and wary of politicians who cloak themselves in religion. I think it is fine to have a moral compass that is guided by it, but I want the religious aspect left out of policy and law. There is not a single example in history where religious concepts, put into law and enforced on the masses, has turned out well.
5. Freedom reigns supreme. Recruit those that believe in that and let’s move on to better times. If their religious views don’t align with yours, not your problem, they will answer (or not depending on your view) at a later time and not to you.

 

[DadSmith]

No.

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

But, being too violent to be allowed to exercise a basic human right is something that must be determined case by case. So what do you think about red flag laws? is it better to adjudicate case by case, or just say, no, we can't take chances with this whole group of people so we'll just blanket exclude them from this right.

I agree . To protect a free or somewhat free society of ours today there is certain amount of violence, and death one has to accept.
As you point out if freedom can be taken from a minority group no matter how violent they are it can be taken from anyone.

 

[jamil]

1) have you ever bought a cold beer on Sunday?
2) have you ever waited until the last moment to merge into a reduced lane on the interstate?
3) did you ever secretly sneak a case of bud light out the store by disguising it as Stroh's?

...

4472) have you watched a football game where any player knelt for the national anthem?
4473) have you ever had non-mish sex?

 

[loudgroove]

I just had a thought, and I don't believe it has ever happened. I now want every candidate for any office to be asked two questions. If anything, just to get them on record!
1. What views do you not share with your political party that will benefit your constituents?
2. How do you plan on fighting your party over these issues?

We have Rino's but not Dino"s? oops that me just thinking out loud! lol

 

[jamil]

I just had a thought, and I don't believe it has ever happened. I now want every candidate for any office to be asked two questions. If anything, just to get them on record!
1. What views do you not share with your political party that will benefit your constituents?
2. How do you plan on fighting your party over these issues?

We have Rino's but not Dino"s? oops that me just thinking out loud! lol

yeah. Go listen to Jimmy Dore. He talks about DINO's. So does Cenk Uygur.

 

[Twangbanger]

1) have you ever bought a cold beer on Sunday?
2) have you ever waited until the last moment to merge into a reduced lane on the interstate?
3) did you ever secretly sneak a case of bud light out the store by disguising it as Stroh's?

...

4472) have you watched a football game where any player knelt for the national anthem?
4473) have you ever had non-mish sex?

4474) Have you transported a person across state lines for the purpose of obtaining a beer on Sunday?

4475) Does your church perform gay weddings?

4476) Do you believe in coincidences?

 

[loudgroove]

yeah. Go listen to Jimmy Dore. He talks about DINO's. So does Cenk Uygur.

Oh? I'll check him out.

 

[BugI02]

2. I don’t give an effwhat sexual orientation, gender you think you are, etc. as long as you don’t force it on me.

How long did it take to go from 'We just want to be free to love whomever we want' to 'Bake the cake!'

How long do you think it will take to go from 'We were just born in the wrong body' to 'We'll take your kids away from you if you won't allow us to mutilate them provide gender affirming 'care'

Oh, sorry - we're already there. The whole idea seems to be to force acceptance of the preferred narrative on us

 

[Tombs]

How long did it took to go from 'We just want to be free to love whomever we want' to 'Bake the cake!'

How long do you think it will take to go from 'We were just born in the wrong body' to 'We'll take your kids away from you if you won't allow us to mutilate them provide gender affirming 'care'

Oh, sorry - we're already there. The whole idea seems to be to force acceptance of the preferred narrative on us

This is the big thing people are missing when they think that these issues fall on the side of liberty.

They don't, because a core component of the ideology behind that is forcing other's participation, either through social punishment, or legal punishment.

I can't tell you how many times I've watched them reject the concept of civil unions, when it would have been a compromise that appeased almost everyone in the nation. Demonstrating legal tolerance for their freedoms, while also respecting the rights and dignity of the rest of the country who isn't keen on it.

Instead what we get is radical and violent objection to anyone who doesn't fully accept this distorted world view, with a constantly shifting goal post, that's already treading into the most crazy slippery slope "fallacies" that were made when gay marriage was being discussed.

 

[foszoe]

I just had a thought, and I don't believe it has ever happened. I now want every candidate for any office to be asked two questions. If anything, just to get them on record!
1. What views do you not share with your political party that will benefit your constituents?
2. How do you plan on fighting your party over these issues?

We have Rino's but not Dino"s? oops that me just thinking out loud! lol

Congratulations on your first thought. It gets easier from there.

I am up to 3.