quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
Unlike the OP, I didn’t find the NYT in the midst of sea-change with respect to guns, gun owners, and the NRA. Look at this sentence in the second paragraph, I wanted to stop right there.

Please don't put words in my mouth. My opinions of the NYT's and of the gun control mob haven't changed one bit. I simply have never in twenty years read an article in the Time's of all places that appears at least on some level defeatist on the topic.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Unfortunately, many of them think compromising with commies is a good idea. "They will leave us alone, if we just concede this one time".

Compromise my ass. I'm not advocating we compromise one bit on any level. As a matter of fact, when I read this, my hope was the gun grabbing crowd felt a bit demoralized by the fact that SCOTUS wasn't going to support their BS efforts, which made me think we should step up our efforts and go for the throat of the beast.

quote:

Originally posted by shovelhead:

quote:

Studies show that a small percentage of the population, such as gang members and hardened criminals, commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

Brilliant journalism here.

Wait, when they report a fact that we have recognized for decades and which might lead some to consider actions that might actually work, you still complain?

I understand they didn't want to say this, and have engaged in some weird gyrations to avoid saying it over the years, but there it is, and from a lefty, no less.

Some would complain if they were hung with a new rope.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
"The justices are considering the constitutionality of a New York law that makes it hard for residents to obtain a permit to carry concealed firearms in public. The court, with three conservative pro-gun justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, will almost certainly say New York’s law is too restrictive under the Second Amendment — which will lead, predictably, to more guns on city streets and more violent crime."

With ZERO changes in firearms regulations, but NYPD hamstrung by "Defund the Police" BLM supporters in charge of the city, New York's violent crime rate has risen expotentially due to policies that enable criminals to do what they want without fear of consequences and now the New York Times is worrying about violent crime because the law abiding will possibly have an increased ability to protect themselves??? Of course, they want to blame the former President and SCOTUS for these injuries and deaths, even though they immediately followed the 2020 BLM rise to power.

You just can't make this stuff up to be more idiotic!!!

They trotted out the same argument when Florida began issuing CCL's in the volumes they have, that blood would run in the streets. Not surprising to anyone who lives in reality, nothing of the sort happened.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Unfortunately, many of them think compromising with commies is a good idea. "They will leave us alone, if we just concede this one time".

Compromise my ass. I'm not advocating we compromise one bit on any level. As a matter of fact, when I read this, my hope was the gun grabbing crowd felt a bit demoralized by the fact that SCOTUS wasn't going to support their BS efforts, which made me think we should step up our efforts and go for the throat of the beast.

Why are you angry at me? I wasn't even talking to you, about you or anyone in this thread. Just a general response in agreement with slowlane from so many years of observing our side caving in to the commies' deception.

And, here is another clever deception, while everything else he talked about is just meaningless smoke and mirror, imo.

quote:

The justices are considering the constitutionality of a New York law that makes it hard for residents to obtain a permit to carry concealed firearms in public. The court, with three conservative pro-gun justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, will almost certainly say New York’s law is too restrictive under the Second Amendment — which will lead, predictably, to more guns on city streets and more violent crime.

This asshole is sending a message to the "Trump justices", "Hey, prove to us you don't owe Trump anything". Kavanaugh and Barrett have shown that they can be manipulated, as far as I'm concerned.

Jhe888, no I will not heap praise on someone for acknowledging that water is wet and matches start fires. Saying that hardened criminals and gang members commit a disproportionate amount of crime is so far beyond self evident it boggles the mind. Nope, no gold star for that.

Playing their game is just a recipe to accept some other “lesser” infringement on 2a rights. Nope, nope, nope.

The SCOTUS took the case on very limited basis and cert was granted on a slightly different question than what was requested. The facts will be narrowly considered on a limited basis and in the end, there will be no ruling that says you have an absolute right to carry CCW or open in any place or when you want.

Instead, the ruling will give discretion to .gov to enact "good cause" requirements if they want or not but if they do follow good cause, they cannot make good cause unachievable and it must be on reasonable grounds.

The only unanswered question is what constitutes good cause. Will remanded it back down for trial court clarification or will they determine that SD is enough to meet good cause and that background checks and wait times aren't required?

My guess is they will give guidance on good cause that is generally applicable to the nation so that someone applying for a permit in NYC or LA will not face any greater restrictions or hurdles than in other parts of the country.

I think the decision will be very narrow just for the facts in the case. Keep in mind that Heller was just a local case too and it had nationwide implications so quien sabe?

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Jhe888, no I will not heap praise on someone for acknowledging that water is wet and matches start fires. Saying that hardened criminals and gang members commit a disproportionate amount of crime is so far beyond self evident it boggles the mind. Nope, no gold star for that.

Playing their game is just a recipe to accept some other “lesser” infringement on 2a rights. Nope, nope, nope.

Wait. Where, or in what words, did I suggest praising them or giving them a gold star?

This may be a case of "even a blind hog," but all I am noting is that they blundered into a truth. If the left attempts to make new and different attempts that infringe on the Second Amendment, I will join with you to attack those attempts.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Wait, when they report a fact that we have recognized for decades and which might lead some to consider actions that might actually work, you still complain?

I understand they didn't want to say this, and have engaged in some weird gyrations to avoid saying it over the years, but there it is, and from a lefty, no less.

And you wonder why you get static from me. Why in the world are you even arguing this point? You hadn't even posted before making this comment, so it's not as if you were already engaged in a back-and-forth. You really can't see the problem with the NYT finally acknowledging the truth? What the Hell?

quote:

Some would complain if they were hung with a new rope.

People will complain about being hung, no matter what the condition of the rope. What in the world are you trying to say?

quote:

If the left attempts to make new and different attempts that infringe on the Second Amendment, I will join with you to attack those attempts.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be interested in the kind of assistance you're offering up here.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

People will complain about being hung, no matter what the condition of the rope. What in the world are you trying to say?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q...ith%20a%20new%20rope

Also, please tell me how late in a thread it is to make a first comment. I do have to work for a living, so I don't always notice every thread right away. I wouldn't want to make another unacceptably late comment. I've been a member for years, and generally understand the customs here, but this is a new one, so lets be clear.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Wait, when they report a fact that we have recognized for decades and which might lead some to consider actions that might actually work, you still complain?

ICBW, but I suspect shovelhead's point is something like "You don't say?"

The author of that guest opinion piece is finally conceding to something any half-clued individual has known for years--decades.

IOW: "Well, duh."

As far as the concessions made in that opinion piece leading the left, in general, and the gun-grabbers, in particular, to considering actions that might actually work: Dream on.

For the left to actually support substantive measures it would have to offend one of its core constituencies. Can you just imagine the howls of protest if the left suddenly did an about-face and suggested those guilty of the violence perpetrated with firearms suffer the consequences of their actions?

Not bloody likely. They couldn't even bring themselves to stopping the cretins holding major leftist bastions hostage when said cretins were clearly breaking the law in multiple ways, day-after-day. Often violently.

They even attacked Trump for sending Federal defenders to defend Federal property from the mayhem when their own "law enforcement" agencies would not or could not.

In fact I predict the author of that opinion piece will be pilloried by the left, for the left does not like the truth.

Oh brother jhe. You are taking argumentative to a whole new level. And yes you are praising them “for blundering into a truth”. Which is complete bullshit by the way. They recognize they took a losing tack and are desperate to salvage something from the wreckage and you are playing right into their hands. Yes, since they now blundered into the truth let’s agree to a universal gun registry or closing that pesky rule where you can just give guns to your kids without the government intervening, etc, etc. We could do this all day.

Still no gold star for seeing what a brain dead 3rd grader could figure out.

I took jhe888 's post to mean something like" Oh, look, there's a silver ring in the pile of shit they spewed, suitable for putting it in their nasal septum and jerking them painfully off their intended path."

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
I took jhe888 's post to mean something like" Oh, look, there's a silver ring in the pile of shit they spewed, suitable for putting it in their nasal septum and jerking them painfully off their intended path."

Thanks. You got it.

Yeah, you didn't answer my primary question. You were too busy being clever. Tell ya what- never mind.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Also, please tell me how late in a thread it is to make a first comment. I do have to work for a living, so I don't always notice every thread right away. I wouldn't want to make another unacceptably late comment. I've been a member for years, and generally understand the customs here, but this is a new one, so lets be clear.

You have missed the point. It's not the position of your post in the thread that's at issue. You're hopeless, man.