search results matching tag: Gun rights

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (19)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (80)   

Abortion Rights: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

newtboy jokingly says...

Can some OBGYN please figure out how to perform an abortion with a gun? The right would be too confused whether to oppose the abortion rights or support the gun rights to do either.

Robot dog with a machine gun

BSR says...

You would have to admit. It does make killing safer. I'm betting Putin would love some of those robot guns right about now.

Buttle said:

In a few years this won't look very funny at all.

Chelsea Handler on Roe v. Wade Being Overturned

newtboy says...

You are 100% insane and intentionally ignorant.
The court has been majority conservative since the 70’s, it’s now 6-3 conservative and you claim to believe it’s still liberal, just one conservative decision came out. So delusional bob.

Yeah, no one had any issues with the 100% liberal decisions from the liberal Supreme Court…like Citizens United.
Just. So. Ignorant. And. Dumb. Bob.

The right has regressed hard fought freedoms and rights by 50 years. The free world is aghast at what the symbol of freedom and liberty became over such a short 5 year stretch thanks to our core being decimated by magats.

Your ignorance knows no bounds, comrade. No American is so clueless that they think the court JUST became conservative.

Children aren’t in wombs, you brainless slug.

And wow, you are so bat shit crazy you actually go after comedians doing a comedy show for telling jokes. I know they don’t do that in con comedy, but REAL comedy has jokes, not just vitriolic hateful verbal assaults against common enemies. You might try it some time.

So, no college makes a person uneducated and dumb….no high school must make them moronic, like your dear old dad, grandpa, and from your grammar, math, science, and history skills, you too despite your claim, and let’s not forget Boebert. No intelligent thought between the four of you. Didn’t think we wouldn’t remember how proud you are of your ignorant uneducated ancestors, the long family history of people that didn’t finish high school? Considering your abilities, and how easy you are duped into believing nonsensical lies with no facts or logic to them, I wouldn’t be surprised to find you didn’t graduate 8th grade. Wait…is your real name “Hershel”?

No intelligent thought. Hasn’t been an intelligent thought from you since you signed up here, Bob. Just regurgitation of blatantly false propaganda and infantile preschooler insults and whining. Lots of your lies being debunked which you answer by simply telling more lies hoping people didn’t notice you were just thoroughly debunked with corroborated facts and called out as the moronic liar you are for the 972nd time.

PS- way to try posting your discarded idiotic fact free propaganda in comments. Lucky you comments don’t get discarded for negative votes or you would have only about a dozen left from your unpopular and largely unwanted time here….silly little troll.

I suppose you agree that mean man shot Rudy in the back with his invisible gun, right? Almost tackled him, but Rudy is so strong he maintained his balance. Never a true word from Republicans, every syllable you utter is false. If you guys got your wish, a culture like 70’s Saudi Arabia where only white men have power and everyone else is subservient, it wouldn’t make you happy because you would all be begging on the streets with no hands or tongue, because they cut off your hands for stealing and your tongues for lying in that culture.

bobknight33 said:

Fifty years of liberal decisions and the left had no issue with the supreme court. Now the pendulum swings back and all hell breaks loose. The left are the radical side. This decision is just put the issue back to the states, where it belongs. About 1/3 of the states allow this murdering already

Still the most dangerous place for a child will still be the womb.


Like how Handler is unable to have an intelligent conversion about this topic just slanted jokes. That is all you can expect from an uneducated person with no college. No intelligent thought.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers….Barrett is barely even a judge, rushed in by a lame duck traitorous seditionist and his lackeys, directly contradicting their own excuse for not hearing Obama’s nomination. They actually admitted they rammed her through as fast as possible with the barest minimum of examination in order to pack the court in anticipation of them contesting the election results….admitted it before the election.
Kavenaugh and Barrett are both extremist Far right wingers, political activist judges, who lied in their confirmation, one is a multiple rapist, never investigated, the other a religious extremist with zero experience who said she would recuse herself on any issue of faith, but hasn’t recused herself from any.
Throw down the gauntlet?! Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts, and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42—58. Bork's margin of rejection by the Senate remains, by percentage, the third-largest on record and broke a 142-year record for largest defeat of a Supreme Court nomination. A historic immediate bipartisan rejection because he was totally unsuited, and had undeniably tried to help Nixon cover up Watergate as acting AG by firing the special prosecutor at Nixon’s direction (the AG and deputy AG had quit when Nixon insisted)….*.
Absolutely nothing similar to Obama being denied a hearing for his picks for a year until his term ended….*. Holy shit! What stupidity.

There are far fewer “conservatives” today, the Republican Party is 26% of the population, not a majority.

Yes, they are throwing cases to the packed court as fast as possible before their stolen majority evaporates. I support a 15 justice Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment halting any further additions without a 2/3 majority….add 6 hyper liberals…no judicial experience necessary or even preferred…AOC would be great.

Why bring a case you might lose? Because cases are supposed to be heard on their merits, not based on political affiliation you ignorant cow. You think the Supreme Court should be a political wing of the right, choosing and deciding cases based on political affiliation, not the law, science, common sense, ethics, or precedent….but only when it serves you.

So, gun rights should be up to states? That’s the next step if you win that fight…the constitution dies and states decide everything….as civil war erupts. Great plan, so patriotic. Remember, California is big enough that when they require fingerprint scanners on all guns sold in the state, manufacturers will add them to all guns….when semi auto guns are banned, manufacturers will move to single shot guns….just like auto manufacturers changed their cars to meet our requirements. Is that your plan? Had you even considered what individual states being in control means? It means California becomes the leader of America, controlling the other states by means of our size, wealth, and international clout. Enjoy.

Not like this, it hasn’t. Never in American history has the court been politicized and weaponized against the will of the majority to ignore precedent (contrary to their oaths and confirmation statements) in order to overturn established law and constitutional rights as a political act. Never.

bobknight33 said:

To say that Republicans are politicizing the supreme court is nonsense. Democrats pick left leaning and Republicans pick right leaning. This is not new. Where were your complaints of politicizing when Sotomayor or Kagen were appointed?

But if you want to go there it started with Senator Ted Kennedy within minutes of Bork being picked by POTUS Reagen to be appointed took to the floor of the senate and thrown down the gauntlet.


They may be lean more conservative today however Its been leaning left last 50 years.

The fact that cases are now before the court is because some conservatives feel there is a chance to have their cases win.

Why bring these case before the supreme court if you know you would have a high likely to loose. All the cost time and effort.


WRT to the abortion issue .If overturned it just means that the decision goes back to the states.


Overturning a previous opinions has occurred and will occur in the future .

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

newtboy says...

So, Bob. What about the victim’s right to defend themself from an armed aggressor who had followed them for blocks and was confronting him with weapon cocked and at the ready? He should have shot Rittenhouse in the head when he allegedly pointed, but didn’t shoot his gun, right? That would have solved everything, no charges to be brought, no lawsuit for pedonazi’s parents, no harm, no foul, right? Pure self defense, not even a need to report it, right?

Rittenhouse hunted him for blocks. Chasing him down with an assault rifle as the victim retreated. Then murdered him when he stopped running away. Just want it on the record, you think that’s fine, as is shooting anyone who tries to stop you from leaving the scene of a murder you just committed. Go on. Say it. It’s fine to hunt and kill people you don’t like.
Now…is it fine if the shooter is black and the victim is a baby faced white Republican boy? Pretty sure I know the real answer already.

Trumpist crowds are dangerous and criminal. If they need to get shot up by liberals who get scared by their aggressiveness….. self defense! Aim for the head, guys, and claim you tried a non deadly area to shoot. There’s nothing up there to hurt.

bobknight33 said:

@JiggaJohnson
@bcglorg

Prosecution's Main Witness ( victim) Admits Kyle Rittenhouse Acted in Self-Defense




Having a illegally owned a gun and self defense are 2 different crimes

as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.
"

Doc Rivers

newtboy says...

Hmmmm...ok, that's not legislation but is what I meant. A forced buyback program is going to have issues.

1) I have no problem with companies having to answer for injuries caused by the prescribed, advertised proper use of their product. If shoes were sold as having the greatest shin kicking power, doing the most damage when you kick someone, shoe manufacturers should be sued by those who get kicked. If manufacturers haven't modeled and advertised in a way that suggests dangerous uses, the suits will lose. Lawyers don't take loser cases, so it won't be an issue imo. Special protections from liability are a problem imo.

2) I've never understood the endgame there. What is an assault rifle, and how are their capabilities special? That said, no one is clamoring for Uzis to come back. Without a legitimate reason for high capacity fast shooting rifles, and no attempts to ban semi auto rifles, I'm just not that bothered by it, but I do think it's placating not meaningful legislation.

3) I have zero issues with registration or background checks. That seems the right way to deal with "assault rifles". There's no reason it should be expensive or time consuming if records are up to date. If they make it expensive as a tax disincentive against ownership, I have a problem. Shooting isn't a cheap sport, $10-20 a year shouldn't bother those who spent $2k on one rifle.

4) No issue at all with voluntary buy backs. Involuntary buybacks are going to be a legal and practical nightmare.

5) one purchase per month, a bit much. One purchase at a time, I'm ok with, that's 3 a month, right? I'm suspicious of anyone who needs multiple guns quick before they calm down.

6) I'm all for universal background checks. I don't want nutjob and violent criminals buying guns they aren't allowed to own.

7) I'm all for not allowing those who can't handle day to day existence to buy guns. I'm even ok with TEMPORARY removal of their guns in some cases, but only if they're returned immediately after they're deemed competent.

misdemeanor hate crime? I thought hate crime was an enhancement charge that took a misdemeanor up to felony level. I'm definitely against taking gun rights away permanently for misdemeanors.

9) dunno what that is.

10) the problem is you can buy a receiver that needs to be finished, as little as one tiny drill hole is enough, with no serial number or registration. It's just a chunk of metal until it's finished. No problem with a background check for every purchase, but a maximum of one check per month seems a reasonable compromise.

11) with proper oversight and a system that ensures it's not abused, no problem for me.

12) Yes, strict guidelines and quick return seem necessary. 48 hours without a doctor stating it's necessary would work, but as of now they aren't ready for prime time on that it seems.

13) had that in cali forever, not an issue yet.

14) as designed, smart guns wouldn't be hackable, there's no reason for wireless connectivity. Battery? Make it charge itself by shaking it like some flashlights? I like the idea that guns can only be used by the owner, solves so many issues, mainly being shot with your own gun.

15) depends on what constitutes "safe". I agree, guns for home defense need to be available quickly.

16) some ghost guns are milled on professional cnc mills but unfinished. 3d printed guns, I'm not a fan. 3 shots is plenty to murder someone, and with no identification it's a near perfect weapon for crimes.
3d printing is advancing constantly. You can print in metal with fine details now on home equipment. I think it won't be long before stable guns can be printed if they aren't already.

Thanks for doing the research. I seriously doubt most could pass even a democratic congress but some would, and most won't pass court challenges, but I understand your reluctance to put that to the test.

If you're going to fight the swamp thing, I won't argue against leaving a few snakes in the black lagoon. Some opposition is healthy, but the ability to be obstructionist on every idea is gridlock. I don't see it getting better.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

I don't want to remove the chance either, but I wouldn't use that one in ten million chance of success as a selling point for gun rights. Home defense is a far more reasonable need imo.

Mordhaus said:

I understand, it would be almost impossible. I just don't want to remove that chance. I respect your viewpoint though.

Back-To-School Essentials | Sandy Hook Promise

wtfcaniuse says...

Firstly I didn't quote you, I didn't assume anything about you, I didn't mention you or your previous comments at all.

Secondly the second amendment doesn't specify guns and doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use. It's funny how many gun rights advocates don't care if their knives, tasers, knuckle dusters and pepper sprays are regulated and controlled.

Thirdly Gun control doesn't equate to taking all your guns away.

Lastly constitutional amendments can be repealed and changed.

harlequinn said:

You talk like it matters if "an overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control and background checks right". It doesn't.

The founders of the USA foresaw this sort of issue and wrote an extremely strong constitution preventing government from effectively regulating arms.

That's the thing about being a republic, the tyranny of the majority is thankfully neutered.

BTW, don't be dumb and assume my stance on gun control.

God Isn't Allowed In School

RFlagg says...

Because of the shirt/meme shown around the 0:23 mark, where people ask "God, why do you allow violence in our schools" to which the reply is "I'm not allowed in schools". Remember that the Christian Right STRONGLY loves guns and are the biggest advocates of gun rights.

Every mass shooting, the Christian Right comes out and screams that it is a lack of God in schools and in our society that is causing the problem, not guns. It is never guns. It is the lack of God, and then violent movies and games, and mental health (which if true, then one would have to wonder why the GOP passed a law, which while it hasn't taken effect yet, makes it easier for mentally ill people to get a gun, and why every version of the repeal and replace Obamacare include massive cuts to mental health programs). Of course, other countries, as noted, doesn't include forced prayer in school, which the Christian Right wants to see returned, and they don't have the school shooting problems.

Basically, it is the Christian Right's fault. They have made fighting against gun control one of their major platforms. And as the Christian Right makes up the vast majority of Christians in the US (or at least the loudest, and near 100% guaranteed to get out and vote... which is why there won't be a Blue Wave 2018), they control the message. So the "God isn't allowed in schools" argument comes up every single school shooting as one of the most oft-repeated reasons for them. Just watch Fox News or any of the primary Christian programming like Jim Baker and 700 Club, and it is the lack of God in schools, the fact that there's a war against Christianity why we have these shootings.

The US is a country where a full 40% of the population believe the universe is under 10,000 years old. Where saying "happy holidays" is a war on Christianity, and that Christianity is the most attacked faith in the world, which proves that it is the one true faith. And this isn't hyperbole on my part, this is what they teach in the Christian Right churches, movies, shows, televangelists and the like (I used to be among their numbers). They honestly see attempts at controlling guns as an attack on their faith. They honestly ignore Jesus saying that it wasn't an eye for an eye and that he said those who live by the sword will die by it, and think that the right to own and defend oneself as a divine right from God himself. So they bring the lack of God as the reason for all these shootings in the US.

cloudballoon said:

It's almost stupid to drag religion into the gun violence/ownership issue. There are religious/atheist citizens who support/detest gun violence/ownership. What's the benefit of doing it?

Sheriff Rips NRA - You’re Not Standing Up For Victims

notarobot jokingly says...

Guess the people who called in should have told the cops they thought the kid was growing weed.

Better to ban plants than guns, right?

bobknight33 said:

The kid was a nut.... Not a gun issue....

The system failed.
39 calls to local police.
Few calls to FBI..

Yet again the only leftest solution is to ban guns.. What bullshit.

This cop IS responsible for what happened. The buck stops with him and his office.. His office failed.

Say nay to Nonsensical Rifle Addiction (NRA)

newtboy says...

...and, imagine an idiot so ignorant and racist that they hear NRA as "white people"...as if non whites were barred from membership and only whites support gun rights.

bobknight33 said:

Yea I watched-- did you.

It does not address the real problem with gun violence but points to NRA and white people-- Who are not the problem.

Inner city gang bangers are.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

bcglorf says...

Come on, it's ok if we agree on something . Your African examples aren't really oppressive dictatorships, they are collections of failed states or outright anarchy, which I'll readily agree is easily possible with or without a well armed population. If you want to note African examples, when Kagame seized control of Rwanda, he didn't exactly decide to leave the genocidal opponents he cast out open ended gun rights. As is always the case, removing their ability to wage war was kind of prerequisite to his control of the country.

newtboy said:

I'm sorry, but a claim isn't evidence.
There are African countries where there may not be gun rights, but neither are there restrictions, mainly because there's barely government. Armed tyrannical groups have still managed to seize control, even though the populace was moderately well armed. Somalia comes to mind. The same happened repeatedly in central America and South America in the past.

So I disagree it's impossible, but it is more difficult.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

newtboy says...

I'm sorry, but a claim isn't evidence.
There are African countries where there may not be gun rights, but neither are there restrictions, mainly because there's barely government. Armed tyrannical groups have still managed to seize control, even though the populace was moderately well armed. Somalia comes to mind. The same happened repeatedly in central America and South America in the past.

So I disagree it's impossible, but it is more difficult.

bcglorf said:

Let's step back then from arguing against other people's claims.

The claim that tyranny is pretty universally based upon an unarmed civilian population provides at least some real world evidence that civilian armament and freedom have some correlation. Whether that warrants allowing citizen's access to weaponized anthrax and cruise missiles is another matter. Can you agree that a well armed population is incompatible with historical tyranny(Mao, Stalin, Saddam, Gadhafi, the Kim's)?

Vox explains bump stocks

Mordhaus says...

The thing about bump stocks that people are not realizing is that they are simply a mod that allows you to do the same thing you could already do with many semi-automatic weapons, emulate automatic fire.

There is a slightly more dangerous method which can be done simply by not bracing the stock and using the pistol grip. Many semi-auto weapons also can easily be 'broken' to cause slamfires, where the rounds are auto-fired as soon as they are loaded due to a stuck firing pin.

I highly believe in gun rights and the second amendment. But this latest tragedy has finally done it. There is simply no need to have that many semi-automatic rifles in one's possession. We need to re-enact the AWB from 1994, we need to set a cap limit on how many semi-automatic rifles a person can own, and we need to clearly state that ANY modification that can simulate automatic fire is illegal.

We have fostered a state where the mentally ill are no longer being treated or taken care of, except by drugs. Since it is clear that we have multitudes of people separated from becoming the next mass murderer simply based on whether to not they took their meds (or were diagnosed correctly to begin with), we need to make a stricter environment that prevents these people from getting the weapons to make it easier.

Trump Jokes That Gun Owners Can 'Fix' the Clinton Problem

heropsycho says...

Ummm, no.

Hillary Clinton said she would continue her primary campaign because you never know, and gave RFK's assassination as an historical example of someone who appeared to have the nomination well in hand, and then suddenly didn't. She CLEARLY wasn't telling anyone to go assassinate Obama, nor implying it.

The only valid defense of this Trump clip is he was talking about the people can use their guns to stop their guns from being taken away, which at best is inciting violence against the government. The worst part is he's telling hardcore gun right advocates they could do this against the odds on favorite next president of the US for a policy she doesn't even support.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-falsely-claims-hillary-clinton-wants-/

There is no equivalency between Hillary Clinton's remark and this Donald Trump clip at all, just like even if you don't like Hillary Clinton at all, equating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as candidates is also ridiculous.

Sylvester_Ink said:

Didn't Hillary also make an implication about Obama being assassinated in 2008? Only I don't recall anyone making as much of a big deal about it back then. Meanwhile, this quote can actually be construed as Trump pointing out that gun owners would be the only ones able to fight back against their gun rights being taken away in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

If you compare both quotes side by side, both are fairly innocuous. It's just that the media blew one of them way out of proportion. Don't let the media lead you by the nose.

(And before the angry comments come, I am FAR from being a Trump supporter. I felt the Bern, and now I'm burning Green.)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon