Gun Control & RKBA

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,479 posts) Tue Oct 11, 2016, 10:09 AM Oct 2016

An objective of the RKBA [View all]

Excessive limits on the RKBA are not in general steps toward tyranny.
Rather it is the maintaining of said rights and freedoms which demonstrate that tyranny is absent.

The RKBA is a demonstration of trust in the individual and I submit that, if individuals can't be trusted with guns, they surely can't be trusted with votes.

99 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

An objective of the RKBA [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 OP

I agree that the RKBA is an implicit statement of trust in the citizenry, unique in Eleanors38 Oct 2016 #1

I don't trust this guy. stone space Oct 2016 #2

I could be wrong but I believe that guy is jail discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #4

He's not in jail. He killed himself after engaging in a bloody massacre. stone space Oct 2016 #6

I missed this earlier discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #14

I don't trust you. beevul Oct 2016 #12

I respect you enough to not carry a gun. stone space Oct 2016 #15

Like hell you do. beevul Oct 2016 #16

Wow. I'm not sure what's got you so upset here. stone space Oct 2016 #17

Do you trust him to carry a gun? Trust him enough not to demand the government prevent him... Marengo Oct 2016 #33

Of course not. stone space Oct 2016 #34

Why don't you trust Beevul to carry a gun? What has he done to earn your distrust? Marengo Oct 2016 #35

For the same reason that he doesnt trust me. stone space Oct 2016 #36

Am I to assume that fundamentally you distrust anyone with firearms? Other than to say... Marengo Oct 2016 #42

Who said I was upset? beevul Oct 2016 #82

Who do you trust with firearms? Marengo Oct 2016 #13

It doesn't matter. stone space Oct 2016 #23

I didn't ask who you don't trust, rather who you do trust with firearms. Can you answer? Marengo Oct 2016 #26

Again, it doesn't matter. stone space Oct 2016 #28

You appear to be dodging as my question stands on it's own. Why can't you answer? Marengo Oct 2016 #30

The OP doesn't advocate disenfranchising folks who CAN be trusted with guns. stone space Oct 2016 #38

Just to narrow the focus... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #40

For purposes of this discussion, that would be... stone space Oct 2016 #41

I understand your set description discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #43

As you are the bottleneck here, not me, that's pretty much out of my hands. stone space Oct 2016 #44

How does Beevul fall into the same intersection as Zimmerman? What similarities are there? Marengo Oct 2016 #46

Are you assuming that Beevul is in the intersection? stone space Oct 2016 #49

Do you, or do you not, trust Beevul with guns. Do you, or do you not, trust Zimmerman with guns? Marengo Oct 2016 #50

No and no. stone space Oct 2016 #51

What about Beevul and Zimmerman are similar to cause you not to trust either? Marengo Oct 2016 #61

Do you believe that Beevul and Zimmerman are similar? stone space Oct 2016 #64

I'm not quite sure what to make of your apparent difficulty following your own train of thought. Marengo Oct 2016 #66

Are there any character or trait based intersections between the two within your set? Marengo Oct 2016 #68

I infer that you are unable to answer the question discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #47

For the most part I don't control the criteria for the intersection. stone space Oct 2016 #48

I guess you don't discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #52

You want to disenfranchise people and you don't even know who they are? stone space Oct 2016 #54

Perhaps you could hold up your end of the discussion... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #56

Both Beevul and Zimmerman are in the set under my control. stone space Oct 2016 #58

Actually, I'll leave it you to make the determination who is a member of your set discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #60

I answered. You didn't. stone space Oct 2016 #63

re: "I answered. You didn't." discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #77

Tired of the diversions and deflections. stone space Oct 2016 #78

I'm happy for you n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #79

Why are they in the same set under your control? Marengo Oct 2016 #62

Because they both satisfy the condition for set membership. stone space Oct 2016 #65

And that condition would be? Marengo Oct 2016 #67

I don't trust them with guns. stone space Oct 2016 #69

Why not? Based on what criteria? Marengo Oct 2016 #70

Why are you so obsessed about this? stone space Oct 2016 #71

Why are you so reluctant to answer? It's very odd, as if you are fearful to answer. You must have... Marengo Oct 2016 #72

What is this fear thing all about? stone space Oct 2016 #76

Why won't you answer the question? If not out of fear, than why the reluctance? Marengo Oct 2016 #80

Again, fear. Is fear the only way you have to assert dominance? stone space Oct 2016 #81

Why won't you answer the question? What am I to assume is the reason for your reluctance to do so? Marengo Oct 2016 #90

He does that a lot Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #92

What metrics, in general terms, do you base a belief someone is not to be trusted... Marengo Oct 2016 #45

He won't answer Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #73

Apparently not. One is left to wonder why. Marengo Oct 2016 #74

He never answers simple questions Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #75

Why are you baiting and engaging in personal insults? stone space Oct 2016 #83

Unfortunately what has happened Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #85

Your insults are not facts. They are just personal insults. stone space Oct 2016 #86

Which ones? Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #87

Do you have anything besides insults? stone space Oct 2016 #88

They're accurate observations of your behavior. beevul Oct 2016 #89

Indeed, that is true Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #91

Where did you run off to? Lots of pending questions here, crickets are gathering. Marengo Oct 2016 #100

Post removed Post removed Oct 2016 #101

Prove him wrong by answering my simple questions... Marengo Oct 2016 #93

You really expect an answer? Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #94

I've been engaging him under the assumption he was participating in good faith. Perhaps... Marengo Oct 2016 #95

5+ irrelevant flame bait threads locked in a few days and our genial host is reaching his limits DonP Oct 2016 #96

Yes indeed, the host here is the best Duckhunter935 Oct 2016 #98

Heh. The very long strand appearing on the screen should tip you off... Eleanors38 Oct 2016 #97

Why are you opposed to the right to vote? stone space Oct 2016 #3

re: "Why are you opposed to the right to vote?" discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #5

I'm talking about disenfranchised inmates who neither of us trust to have AR-15s in their cells. stone space Oct 2016 #7

The R E A L L Y short answer discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #8

Too short. You don't what? Don't trust them with votes, or don't stand by your OP? stone space Oct 2016 #9

The only question in your reply (post #7): discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #10

I would, but I can't see an "edit" button on the OP. Can you see one? stone space Oct 2016 #18

I said YOU could use it because you seem to be the one with a problem understanding discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #19

As it stands, your OP advocates disenfranchisement. stone space Oct 2016 #20

No, it really doesn't DonP Oct 2016 #21

The OP openly and directly advocates disenfranchisement of anybody too dangerous to have guns. stone space Oct 2016 #22

Another of your unproven assertions n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #24

It's not my assertion. It's the OP's gunhumping assertion. stone space Oct 2016 #25

What do you mean by "gunhumping" in this context? Marengo Oct 2016 #27

Gunhumping is kind of like chairhumping, but with a gun instead of a chair. stone space Oct 2016 #29

If that is your answer, then your use of the term is gratuitous and nonsensical in context. Marengo Oct 2016 #31

It is your "humping" of your thread-jacking assertion that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2016 #32

About that. beevul Oct 2016 #84

Perhaps it is because oneshooter Oct 2016 #99

Dec 1969 #