Times- Guns in America

wolfwood · Oct 26, 2018

So the guy I work with Stephen Stamboulieh along with a couple hundred other people were interviewed by times Its hard to explain the set up but basically it is a collage and you can click on the person for their interview. Its people on both sides of the debate.

http://time.com/guns-in-america/

rob-cubed · Oct 26, 2018

That's a cool interface, and they seem to have picked a lot of diverse opinions from both sides.

I'm particularly surprised at the number of gun rights = civil rights opinions represented. "Our side" is typically seen as a bunch of old white guys and we generally are—at least most of the events I've been to. It's refreshing to hear defense of 2A coming from such unique perspectives and I wish lawmakers had more exposure to those voices.

Bob A · Oct 26, 2018

rob-cubed said:
TIt's refreshing to hear defense of 2A coming from such unique perspectives and I wish lawmakers had more exposure to those voices.

MD lawmakers have heard a lot of testimony in favor of 2A. Oddly enough, it seems to fall on deaf ears.

haoleboy · Oct 26, 2018

rob-cubed said:
That's a cool interface, and they seem to have picked a lot of diverse opinions from both sides.

I'm particularly surprised at the number of gun rights = civil rights opinions represented. "Our side" is typically seen as a bunch of old white guys and we generally are—at least most of the events I've been to. It's refreshing to hear defense of 2A coming from such unique perspectives and I wish lawmakers had more exposure to those voices.

This wouldn't change their minds. :sad20:

Allen65 · Oct 26, 2018

haoleboy said:
This wouldn't change their minds.

Certainly not when you have Bloomberg throwing $45M at anti candidates in a single election.

Stoveman · Oct 26, 2018

Good to see Maj Toure in the group.

Bob A · Oct 27, 2018

Allen65 said:
Certainly not when you have Bloomberg throwing $45M at anti candidates in a single election.

Hard to comprehend why the Dems would have opposed Citizens United, which turned $$$ into protected political speech.

Except maybe CU was paying the other side of the aisle? "Good for me, not for thee."

Adolph Oliver Bush · Oct 27, 2018

Bob A said:
Hard to comprehend why the Dems would have opposed Citizens United, which turned $$$ into protected political speech.

Because it means the more money you have, the more free speech you can have?

Because it allows corporations to influence elections, even those wholly owned by non-U.S. citizens, like Starkist Tuna (owned by koreans) and General Electric (owned by the chinese)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarKist

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...hat-arent-american-anymore/ss-AAuyrTV#image=1

Ill quote from a famous document folks might recognize. Emphasis mine:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I would argue that Citizens United made for a less perfect Union.

JC92 · Oct 27, 2018

Adolph Oliver Bush said:
Because it means the more money you have, the more free speech you can have?

Because it allows corporations to influence elections, even those wholly owned by non-U.S. citizens, like Starkist Tuna (owned by koreans) and General Electric (owned by the chinese)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarKist

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...hat-arent-american-anymore/ss-AAuyrTV#image=1

Ill quote from a famous document folks might recognize. Emphasis mine:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I would argue that Citizens United made for a less perfect Union.

You have misunderstood the entire situation. Once you start curtailing rights for some, in a misguided attempt to promote those same rights for others, you will embark on a never-ending adventure in which there is always an argument to restrict further rights.

Adolph Oliver Bush · Oct 27, 2018

JC92 said:
You have misunderstood the entire situation. Once you start curtailing rights for some, in a misguided attempt to promote those same rights for others, you will embark on a never-ending adventure in which there is always an argument to restrict further rights.

How is permitting foreigners to meddle in American politics, by way of allowing foreigned-owned U.S.-based corporations to a have free speech in proportion to the amount of money that they have, curtailing the rights of U.S. citizens, exactly? Asking for a friend....

Times- Guns in America

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

wolfwood

Ultimate Member

rob-cubed

In need of moderation

Bob A

όυ φροντισ

haoleboy

1/2 Banned

Allen65

Ultimate Member

Stoveman

TV Personality

Bob A

όυ φροντισ

Adolph Oliver Bush

Ultimate Member

JC92

Active Member

Adolph Oliver Bush

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page