New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchasers

[John24]

I mean if you really want to start a war and shoot cops and soldiers go ahead, but I doubt it will help your cause (and threatening such greatly helps mine, so please continue).

 

[LastStand]

No threat, that is a prediction of what will happen. If you seriously think everyone is going to lie down and comply like good little sheep just because you passed a law, you really need to study the history of this country better. Nocompliance both peaceful and otherwise with laws perceived as tyrannical by various sectors of the population is an American tradition.

Talking about threats and gun control though, who do you think that psychopathic Congressman helped with his threat to nuke American citizens?

 

[DENNYINMI]

Mere gun ownership does not violate the right to life.

That’s a big debate, is it not? I’m not up for the argument and frankly I’m tired of seeing fellow Catholics defend the NRA, manufacturer, and gun related issue likened to Gospel even to the point of resisting the significance of common sense gun laws. Statistically your statement is debatable, one for which the day after Christmas I have no desire to partake in either.

 

[JonNC]

Greatly restricting if not banning gun ownership, of course.

Are you including government? If not, you’re not calling for a ban, you’re calling for tyranny.

 

[JonNC]

I mean if you really want to start a war and shoot cops and soldiers go ahead, but I doubt it will help your cause (and threatening such greatly helps mine, so please continue).

I’m convinced cops and soldiers will, by and large, stand for the constitutional protections of individual rights, and not the fascistic tyrants who would try to end them.

 

[John24]

Nocompliance both peaceful and otherwise with laws perceived as tyrannical by various sectors of the population is an American tradition.

So is racism. Thankfully some people realize that just because something has been done one way for a long time we don’t to continue doing it that way.

I’m convinced cops and soldiers will, by and large, stand for the constitutional protections of individual rights, and not the fascistic tyrants who would try to end them.

If the Constitution is amended to repeal the second amendment then there would be no need to protect nonexistent constitutional rights.

 

[JonNC]

If the Constitution is amended to repeal the second amendment then there would be no need to protect nonexistent constitutional rights.

The right isn’t a constitutional right, it is a constitutionally protected right. The right exists antecedent to the existence of government.

 

[JonNC]

So is racism. Thankfully some people realize that just because something has been done one way for a long time we don’t to continue doing it that way.

I’m just happy we were able to convince the progressives and Democrats how wrong their racist policies were.

 

[John24]

The right isn’t a constitutional right, it is a constitutionally protected right.

And military members swear an oath to the Constitution.

 

[LastStand]

So is racism. Thankfully some people realize that just because something has been done one way for a long time we don’t to continue doing it that way.

Kind of a bad comparison given how people fought against wrongful discrimination, Rosa Parks for instance.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The right isn’t a constitutional right, it is a constitutionally protected right.

And military members swear an oath to the Constitution.

And the founders swore their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to liberty. I think many people in the military and law enforcement would do the same.
I do think it telling that the solution advocated seems to be a turning of the military inward. It is reminiscent of the twentieth century governments, and why the right exists in the first place.

 

[LastStand]

Following orders is never an excuse for doing evil regardless of the legality of those orders.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Can we assume you are okay with being just as coercive and heavy-handed with stopping women from aborting their children? Just looking for consistency, at least. If so, good on ya’.

 

[JonNC]

John24:

So is racism. Thankfully some people realize that just because something has been done one way for a long time we don’t to continue doing it that way.

Kind of a bad comparison given how people fought against wrongful discrimination, Rosa Parks for instance.

Think of all the men who died fighting against slavery in the civil war using their own firearms.

 

[LastStand]

Gun control has an ugly history of racism so his comparison gets even worse and worse from a historical perspective.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

I guess that’s the difference between you and me. When there’s a law I don’t like I don’t threaten to start a war, I work to change the law.

Yes I am sure you would stand by and say you were all for obeying the law if it suddenly became illegal to, say, practice the Catholic faith, peacefully petition the government, if it became illegal for minorities to vote, etc etc. The law is the law after all. If the government decides something isn’t an unalienable right then it is no longer an unalienable right, don’t you agree?

Let’s be honest. What the real issue is here is that you think the 2nd amendment is a second class right, ie it isn’t really a right at all. Luckily for us that amendment will never be overturned. Your kind of reasoning is exactly why the second amendment exists and was codified in the constitution. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

 

[JonNC]

Gun control has an ugly history of racism so his comparison gets even worse and worse from a historical perspective.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/27923/dont-forget-infamous-dred-scott-decision-was-michael-j-knowles%3Famp

Taney’s decision may rank among the worst in Supreme Court history, but it threw into stark relief the social problem that within eight years would send 600,000 American men to their graves to resolve. Citizenship, Taney knew, “would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right … to keep and carry arms wherever they went … endangering the peace and safety of the State.” The Civil War resolved that dispute. Democrats, displeased by the war’s conclusion, spent the next century attempting to deprive freed men of their dearly won, constitutionally protected civil rights in part by enacting and expanding the nation’s first gun control laws. These regulations aimed specifically to disarm liberated blacks, who knew too well the urgency of the Second Amendment.

 

[John24]

I do think it telling that the solution advocated seems to be a turning of the military inward.

No, the solution advocated is greatly restricting or banning gun ownership. The military was only brought up when someone said their response to that would be killing those who disagreed with them.

Following orders is never an excuse for doing evil regardless of the legality of those orders.

You’ll have to explain to me how criminalizing a type of weapon is “doing evil”.

Gun control has an ugly history of racism so his comparison gets even worse and worse from a historical perspective.

That history is ugly because black people could not protect themselves from white people with guns. Take away all the guns and it ceases to be an issue.

What the real issue is here is that you think the 2nd amendment is a second class right, ie it isn’t really a right at all.

You would be correct. I don’t consider an amendment guaranteeing the rights of militias to hunt down black people like animals to a document written by slave owners to be as worthy of protection as amendments protecting speech, religious expression, etc.

Luckily for us that amendment will never be overturned.

Unlucky for the 30,000 annual gun victims.

 

[LastStand]

No, the solution advocated is greatly restricting or banning gun ownership. The military was only brought up when someone said their response to that would be killing those who disagreed with them.

A military response would be necessary. As I pointed out, lots of people will not comply. Then comes Civil War 2, and you will lose.

You’ll have to explain to me how criminalizing a type of weapon is “doing evil”.

Taking away people’s right to defend themselves is evil.

That history is ugly because black people could not protect themselves from white people with guns. Take away all the guns and it ceases to be an issue.

How do you plan to take away guns from people? Seems like guns are going to be necessary for that. Your baseless claim is irrelevant anyway. Slavery existed before guns. So disarmament does not solve the issue.

You would be correct. I don’t consider an amendment guaranteeing the rights of militias to hunt down black people like animals to a document written by slave owners to be as worthy of protection as amendments protecting speech, religious expression, etc.

That is honestly the one of the most detached-from-reality things I have read in a long time, up there with the Communist Manifesto, and The War Against Women.

Do you have any evidence for that claim that the Amendment was written for the express purpose of pursuing black slaves?

Also worth noting, those other rights were also written by slaveholders and some of them abused those rights to free speech and free exercise of religion to justify slavery. Are those rights tainted or just the ones you personally disagree with?

Unlucky for the 30,000 annual gun victims

I have no responsibility for any of those deaths.

 

[Cathoholic]

LastStand . . . .

Note the implications of the article. It starts with the extreme and rare cases of mass shootings and then gives an example of a single firearm purchase at the end. Thereby trying to equate anyone who purchases a firearm with murderers. It is a vicious smear on millions of Americans whose only “crime” is exercising a right that the NYT hates.

Insightful.