Third Party, is it time?

[PAmoderate37]

@TheRedComet

Once a non violent felon has completed their sentence, all of their rights, including the right to bear arms and the right to vote, should be returned to them.

I actually agree with this, when I think felony I just assume violence.

[TheRedComet]

Understandable.

I do think we have some common positions on climate change and police reform.

But on firearms rights, I don’t think there any way for us to compromise.

I still highly respect you as a poster on this forum, though.

[Guilds]

@margaretms2

True story: as a college conservative, I once wrote a paper in defense of nonvoting and America’s low voter turnout. Those were the days, man.

Goo Goo Syndrome!

[Guilds]

@gooddad409

Turn us into Venezuela most likely.

Denmark. We prefer Denmark. Maybe Sweden.

[conan]

@TheRedComet

Shall not be infringed.

This is why there is no compromise with authoritarian left/libs. If you do you have given into their authority.

[Guilds]

@TheRedComet

Understandable.

I do think we have some common positions on climate change and police reform.

But on firearms rights, I don’t think there any way for us to compromise.

I still highly respect you as a poster on this forum, though.

Thanks…back at ya!

I bet there is more that we agree on…than disagree.

[WuWei]

Manchin, Gabbard?

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

The only one they seem willing to accept anymore is the prohibition on felons.

Not counting all the ones we already accepted?

[WuWei]

@Guilds

@gooddad409

Turn us into Venezuela most likely.

Denmark. We prefer Denmark. Maybe Sweden.

White privilege.

[conan]

Not only what privilege but notice how he said we…like he’s speaking for all of us.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

The only one they seem willing to accept anymore is the prohibition on felons.

Not counting all the ones we already accepted?

You haven’t accepted any of them. You live with them because you have no choice.

But this isn’t the point. The point is that all of these issue are so polarizing, and there is no magical middle where a third party could bring both sides together. 2A was an example to illustrate that.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

The only one they seem willing to accept anymore is the prohibition on felons.

Not counting all the ones we already accepted?

You haven’t accepted any of them. You live with them because you have no choice.

But this isn’t the point. The point is that all of these issue are so polarizing, and there is no magical middle where a third party could bring both sides together. 2A was an example to illustrate that.

That’s not at all true. Outlaw is always an option.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

The only one they seem willing to accept anymore is the prohibition on felons.

Not counting all the ones we already accepted?

You haven’t accepted any of them. You live with them because you have no choice.

But this isn’t the point. The point is that all of these issue are so polarizing, and there is no magical middle where a third party could bring both sides together. 2A was an example to illustrate that.

That’s not at all true. Outlaw is always an option.

Perhaps, but it isn’t germane to the point of the thread.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

Perhaps, but it isn’t germane to the point of the thread.

Of course it is. Now.

Imagine a 3rd party that actually followed the Constitution.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

Perhaps, but it isn’t germane to the point of the thread.

Of course it is. Now.

Imagine a 3rd party that actually followed the Constitution.

Well, there’s another one. How can you construct a third party where some folks think “well regulated” is the part to focus on, and other folks say “not infringed” is the part to focus on?

This is an ongoing, heated debate, yet the OP imagines some magical middle that brings these two sides together.

[WuWei]

You can focus on well regulating the militia all you want to.

Those people might want to focus on English grammar first.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

You can focus on well regulating the militia all you want to.

Sure. And you focus on not infringed. And now our third party doesn’t have a plank on gun control.

Or abortion
Or environmental legislation
Or social spending

And on, and on, and on. A third party would be great, but in the current political climate, wouldn’t get off the ground

[WuWei]

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about regulating arms. Well or otherwise. In fact it says quite the opposite.

[biggestal99]

@TheRedComet

But a lot of the left makes it really difficult to have any commonality when they insist on infringing on my rights to keep and bear arms.

It’s not the left that infringes on your second amendment right but SCOTUS and the courts as they allow regulation of that right.

Allam

[biggestal99]

@WuWei

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about regulating arms. Well or otherwise. In fact it says quite the opposite.

What Scalia says goes.

He obviously disagrees with your take on the second. (From the grave of course)

Allan