MNGunTalk.com

Markemp wrote:A red flag law doesn't infringe on your freedoms.

Unless you are the one getting red flagged, WITHOUT due process.

Swatting, doxing, lawfare, are favorite weapons of the left. Red flag will be one more tool in their tool box.

Markemp wrote:A licensing requirement for semi-auto weapons doesn't infringe on your freedom. Regulation is not the opposite of freedom.

Allowing the government to control who does or doesn't, or even to know who has or hasn't, is the end of freedom.

jdege wrote:

Markemp wrote:A licensing requirement for semi-auto weapons doesn't infringe on your freedom. Regulation is not the opposite of freedom.

Allowing the government to control who does or doesn't, or even to know who has or hasn't, is the end of freedom.

If you only see the world in black and white, I can see how you can come to this conclusion. But the world isn't like that. There are a million steps in between where we are and locking up all gun owners (which would include me, by the way). I'm sure we're about to start down the "slippery slope" part of these discussions, but those are just silly and intellectually dishonest. Let's not go there.

We could talk about freedom in the vein of smoking bans in restaurants, or drunk driving, or speech. But most people don't seem to consider regulations on those to be infringing their freedoms.

Let me put it this way: Regulations and laws aren't the loss of freedom. They are the balances between all people's freedoms.

Markemp wrote:

jdege wrote:

Markemp wrote:A licensing requirement for semi-auto weapons doesn't infringe on your freedom. Regulation is not the opposite of freedom.

Allowing the government to control who does or doesn't, or even to know who has or hasn't, is the end of freedom.

If you only see the world in black and white, I can see how you can come to this conclusion. But the world isn't like that. There are a million steps in between where we are and locking up all gun owners (which would include me, by the way). I'm sure we're about to start down the "slippery slope" part of these discussions, but those are just silly and intellectually dishonest. Let's not go there.

We could talk about freedom in the vein of smoking bans in restaurants, or drunk driving, or speech. But most people don't seem to consider regulations on those to be infringing their freedoms.

Let me put it this way: Regulations and laws aren't the loss of freedom. They are the balances between all people's freedoms.

So now you want to tell me what to think? And yet you don’t understand it when we label that type of behavior.

Holland&Holland wrote:So now you want to tell me what to think?

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. You were discussion your freedoms, and I am clarifying my positions on that topic. Feel free to disagree with my position, but me explaining my opinions isn't telling you what or how to think. If that is the bar, then everything you've posted on this site is telling people what to think.

Markemp wrote:We could talk about freedom in the vein of smoking bans in restaurants, or drunk driving, or speech. But most people don't seem to consider regulations on those to be infringing their freedoms.

I must have missed class the day they talked about the freedom to smoke or drive drunk.

As for you lumping speech into your strawman, other than the ultra-left (aka the SAME ONES who want to disarm law-abiding citizens), I don't hear anyone talking about putting regulations on what you can or cannot say.

Markemp wrote:

Holland&Holland wrote:So now you want to tell me what to think?

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. You were discussion your freedoms, and I am clarifying my positions on that topic. Feel free to disagree with my position, but me explaining my opinions isn't telling you what or how to think. If that is the bar, then everything you've posted on this site is telling people what to think.

You ask what freedoms your side wants to take away and then when they are pointed out you state that it is just a common sense opinion. I think the reason for the divisiveness you do not understand is evident.

ex-LT wrote:

Markemp wrote:We could talk about freedom in the vein of smoking bans in restaurants, or drunk driving, or speech. But most people don't seem to consider regulations on those to be infringing their freedoms.

As for you lumping speech into your strawman, other than the ultra-left (aka the SAME ONES who want to disarm law-abiding citizens), I don't hear anyone talking about putting regulations on what you can or cannot say.

You can't be serious. That is literally the platform of the GOP these days. They can't pass laws fast enough to limit speech of others based on their own personal beliefs. Removal of books from libraries about topics they disagree with and things like that, just to start!

Throughout history, the group that goes around banning books has never been considered the "good guys."

Too many points not worth putting anything out there for just another "that isn't what I am saying" type replies from the left so just a couple:

If you don't rehabilitate that first gangbanger you won't be alive to work on numbers 2,3,or 4.

Guns are in the constitution as a right. NONE of others mentioned are a right. Do you have the freedom to speak your opinion? Then I guess the GOP has not stopped you from freedom of speech. Books being taken from a school curriculum are not banned. Still available everywhere but school.

Markemp wrote:

ex-LT wrote:

Markemp wrote:We could talk about freedom in the vein of smoking bans in restaurants, or drunk driving, or speech. But most people don't seem to consider regulations on those to be infringing their freedoms.

As for you lumping speech into your strawman, other than the ultra-left (aka the SAME ONES who want to disarm law-abiding citizens), I don't hear anyone talking about putting regulations on what you can or cannot say.

You can't be serious. That is literally the platform of the GOP these days. They can't pass laws fast enough to limit speech of others based on their own personal beliefs. Removal of books from libraries about topics they disagree with and things like that, just to start!

Throughout history, the group that goes around banning books has never been considered the "good guys."

They are keeping pornographic books out of schools, not libraries. You really need to quit watching the news, you are not well informed.

LarryFlew wrote:Too many points not worth putting anything out there for just another "that isn't what I am saying" type replies from the left so just a couple:

Guns are in the constitution as a right. NONE of others mentioned are a right. Do you have the freedom to speak your opinion? Then I guess the GOP has not stopped you from freedom of speech. Books being taken from a school curriculum are not banned. Still available everywhere but school.

Can a doctor in a number of red states right now tell their patients about abortion options, even those available in other states where it is legal?

Is there a law equivalent to this in any blue states, where talking about an activity that you want to be illegal is punishable by jail time?

Markemp wrote:

ex-LT wrote:

Markemp wrote:We could talk about freedom in the vein of smoking bans in restaurants, or drunk driving, or speech. But most people don't seem to consider regulations on those to be infringing their freedoms.

As for you lumping speech into your strawman, other than the ultra-left (aka the SAME ONES who want to disarm law-abiding citizens), I don't hear anyone talking about putting regulations on what you can or cannot say.

You can't be serious. That is literally the platform of the GOP these days. They can't pass laws fast enough to limit speech of others based on their own personal beliefs. Removal of books from libraries about topics they disagree with and things like that, just to start!

Throughout history, the group that goes around banning books has never been considered the "good guys."

What law has been passed? Please cite.

Markemp wrote:

LarryFlew wrote:Too many points not worth putting anything out there for just another "that isn't what I am saying" type replies from the left so just a couple:

Guns are in the constitution as a right. NONE of others mentioned are a right. Do you have the freedom to speak your opinion? Then I guess the GOP has not stopped you from freedom of speech. Books being taken from a school curriculum are not banned. Still available everywhere but school.

Can a doctor in a number of red states right now tell their patients about abortion options, even those available in other states where it is legal?

Is there a law equivalent to this in any blue states, where talking about an activity that you want to be illegal is punishable by jail time?

Is murder of babies in the bill of rights? I guess I missed that one.

Markemp wrote:
Can a doctor in a number of red states right now tell their patients about abortion options, even those available in other states where it is legal?

Is there a law equivalent to this in any blue states, where talking about an activity that you want to be illegal is punishable by jail time?

Which constitutional amendment was that?? Not in the constitution and never was a right.

The point being made is that TX and OK are trying to infringe on the exercise of free speech between the doctor and the patient.

TX wants to have anyone who does an EAB on a woman, even if it is not in TX, as long as the woman is a TX resident, to be legally liable in TX. MN just passed a law saying our AG's office will defend them.

I have issues with abortion, but some places are going way too far. SCOTUS said that each state can do what they wish with regards to the ability to perform abortions. They did not say that you could prosecute folks for talking about them or referring them out of state.

I suppose a similar "blue state" exercise is the prosecution of antiabortion protesters who get "too close" to the abortion facility. They were exercising free speech and protest...