Message from @Lord Moopy

Discord ID: 687694367921537028


2020-03-12 16:08:02 UTC  

I wasn't

2020-03-12 16:08:04 UTC  

you were

2020-03-12 16:08:10 UTC  

Sure

2020-03-12 16:08:40 UTC  

given the constitutional argument simply dismissed on pre-requisite maters, do you not see the connection?

2020-03-12 16:08:45 UTC  

Ex: My state is PA

2020-03-12 16:09:06 UTC  

our state const states: "THe right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED"

2020-03-12 16:09:13 UTC  

You're implying I see no problem with that

2020-03-12 16:09:26 UTC  

now, if the contitutional argument HELD states would be allowed to decide for themselves

2020-03-12 16:09:34 UTC  

but those rules aren't honored

2020-03-12 16:09:57 UTC  

A problem.

2020-03-12 16:10:12 UTC  

So dismissing my original assertion in favor of Consitutional law assumes that the prerequistes still apply

2020-03-12 16:10:13 UTC  

Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

2020-03-12 16:10:42 UTC  

We're talking about Reagan's statements, and modern Democrat statements.

2020-03-12 16:10:49 UTC  

yes, correct.

2020-03-12 16:10:52 UTC  

And how they're copy-pasted.

2020-03-12 16:11:09 UTC  

I am pointing out that it was a different world with different priorities and a different audience

2020-03-12 16:11:28 UTC  

the democratic party of that era was nothing like the democratic party today

2020-03-12 16:11:43 UTC  

at least everyone acknowledge the bigger threat

2020-03-12 16:11:44 UTC  

Let me spell this out then

2020-03-12 16:11:50 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/678531385123667998/687694351731916822/image0-215.jpg

2020-03-12 16:11:54 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/678531385123667998/687694366189682752/FB_IMG_1584000185906.jpg

2020-03-12 16:12:00 UTC  

reagan was politiking

2020-03-12 16:12:26 UTC  

Do you think that a citizen has to justify utilitarian ownership of a firearm to either sporting or home defense?

2020-03-12 16:12:32 UTC  

offering the dems a bone in the moment that simply allowed him to appear both anti-assault rifle and anti-soviet

2020-03-12 16:12:50 UTC  

each audience heard what they wanted

2020-03-12 16:13:10 UTC  

conservs focused on 'soviet gun'; dems on 'assault-rifle'

2020-03-12 16:13:22 UTC  

absolutely

2020-03-12 16:13:48 UTC  

the citizen should have the right and States should have the right per the constitution

2020-03-12 16:13:48 UTC  

He didn't call it an assault rifle.

2020-03-12 16:13:54 UTC  

but SHOULD != IS

2020-03-12 16:14:12 UTC  

the 'IS' requires concessions for gov to function

2020-03-12 16:14:18 UTC  

from both sides

2020-03-12 16:14:55 UTC  

no, he didn't; but the verbage afterwards implied 'assault-rifle'

2020-03-12 16:15:40 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/678531385123667998/687695312537649201/image0.png

2020-03-12 16:15:46 UTC  

in truth, that attitude is historically incorrect as in the days of the Civil War, private citizens were owners of cannons and other military grade equip

2020-03-12 16:15:54 UTC  

they were even encouraged to do so

2020-03-12 16:16:02 UTC  

Is an ak47 a machine gun?

2020-03-12 16:16:11 UTC  

technically no

2020-03-12 16:16:15 UTC  

colloquially yes

2020-03-12 16:16:17 UTC  

I don't give a metric fuckton of what you stand for, right or left. But if you say you're wanting to ban or restrict the peoples access to arms or ammunition then you're in the "Hanged on live TV." book.

2020-03-12 16:16:38 UTC  

and the collquial definition is the definition democrats understand