noonereal Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 OK, this needs to be viewed. I request all poster do just that. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Quite a few folks have been calling BS for years. Those folks don't have yhe organization or money that the NRA has, so, nothing happens. The politicians change the subject easily with the masses by using silly issues. IE. Trump trying to pick an internet fight with Oprah overnight. Soon this news will fade, and the teen in the video will lose monetary and other support and/or the time necessary to travel and organize etc. I hope all of that is wrong, but, that has been the norm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 Quick question..... So Trump is in the white house now, so for sure he needs to (and should) address this in some fashion.... But how does one magically attribute where we are now to him? FYI: I support 'mass destruction' weapon controls or bans, but not for a basic gun or rifle...even though this will not eliminate the issue, I think for the most part we would be better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: Quick question..... So Trump is in the white house now, so for sure he needs to (and should) address this in some fashion.... But how does one magically attribute where we are now to him? FYI: I support 'mass destruction' weapon controls or bans, but not for a basic gun or rifle...even though this will not eliminate the issue, I think for the most part we would be better off. which weapons would you ban, specific as possible please. How do you feel about license and registration? I assume background checks you are OK with? How about a tax on all sales, like the one we have on beer and cigarettes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 26 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: Trump trying to pick an internet fight with Oprah overnight. I missed this but saw Oprah. Please don't let her run. She is just awful. Not Bernie awful or Warren awful but definitely Cuomo and Schumer awful. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 17 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: Quick question..... So Trump is in the white house now, so for sure he needs to (and should) address this in some fashion.... But how does one magically attribute where we are now to him? FYI: I support 'mass destruction' weapon controls or bans, but not for a basic gun or rifle...even though this will not eliminate the issue, I think for the most part we would be better off. I don't think you can directly attribute this to Trump, unless the kid bought the firearm after Trump signed some legislation or reversed some order that could have stopped the kid from legally obtaining the firearm. Other than that, the buck stops there, would be another way it gets loosely attributed to him. Add in the millions these government officials take from the NRA, and we see something very problematic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 I just read his comments on Oprah, I'd want to run against her too. What bothers me is what he pays attention to. He was watching TV not reviewing the latest intel. Why people never speak to this is something I don't understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 22 minutes ago, noonereal said: which weapons would you ban, specific as possible please. How do you feel about license and registration? I assume background checks you are OK with? How about a tax on all sales, like the one we have on beer and cigarettes? WOW nooner actually talking policy and point ...shocking .....kudos Simple...as a base rue....whatever is legal for your average local police department should be available to citizens. Military grade reserved for military... Go from there... If the 'local' cops are not walking around with 'assault rifles', no need for john Q. public to have them. points 2, 3, and 4....no problem, no problem, and no problem for me. I can get on board with all of that, probably even more so than any 'eliminations'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxchoboian Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: I don't think you can directly attribute this to Trump... This is not an issue to blame Trump or Obama or Bush or Clinton. It is about our country as a whole. To not see the number of guns we have, and the number of gun-related tragedies, in relation to the rest of the world, is ridiculous. Is it more than the NRA's contributions to politicians? Are more than 50% of the people in support of how things are right now with weapon availability? Why do we not discuss possibilities in improving our record in this area? Are 30 clip magazines necessary? 20 clip? Automatic, Semi-automatic? Where do we draw the line? Should there be changes to the current gun purchasing process? What have other countries done to help curb gun deaths? To simply say the 2nd Amendment will never be touched, and thus nothing can be done, thereby things will continue to get worse is a defeatist attitude. And to think we have not gained any intelligence since our country was formed over 200 years ago is ignorant. There are plenty of things to discuss, the least of which having to do with arguing if this or that president is to blame. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 18 minutes ago, noonereal said: I just read his comments on Oprah, I'd want to run against her too. What bothers me is what he pays attention to. He was watching TV not reviewing the latest intel. Why people never speak to this is something I don't understand. So you are either retired, or posting as being 'intellectually dishonest' again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, maxchoboian said: Are 30 clip magazines necessary? 20 clip? Automatic, Semi-automatic? Where do we draw the line? The right to bear arms was written into the constitution as a means to prevent citizens from being repressed by their own government. A tenant of our country, and however you want to define it, this basic concept should never be abandoned. See my last post above....Citizens should have the very same rights to carry as basic law enforcement, no more no less... If you want to ban all guns, you need to make all law enforcement 'English Bobbies' first... There is no magic static line, just a line that needs to be equivalent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: WOW nooner actually talking policy and point ...shocking .....kudos Simple...as a base rue....whatever is legal for your average local police department should be available to citizens. Military grade reserved for military... Go from there... If the 'local' cops are not walking around with 'assault rifles', no need for john Q. public to have them. points 2, 3, and 4....no problem, no problem, and no problem for me. I can get on board with all of that, probably even more so than any 'eliminations'. I have taken a much harder stand since the FL attack. Not sure why but something about this one and my response was just, enough! Then I read some of the "more guns could have stopped it" posts and I wanted to get all radical gun control. I find your proposal, if I can call it that, acceptable in spite of now being possessed, since last week, to take every weapon away from every citizen. I agree with you, without reservation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: The right to bear arms was written into the constitution as a means to prevent citizens from being repressed by their own government. A tenant of our country, and however you want to define it, this basic concept should never be abandoned. Indeed. The intent of an armed militia is simply not applicable today so if we remove this amendment, what to do replace it with that is appropriate for today? (this is actually a rather thought provoking question as we agree, the concept should not be abandoned) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 21 minutes ago, noonereal said: Indeed. The intent of an armed militia is simply not applicable today so if we remove this amendment, what to do replace it with that is appropriate for today? (this is actually a rather thought provoking question as we agree, the concept should not be abandoned) If you and I agree on this one.....well everyone should be able to . You understand the thought process though, and the fact that a 'gun' is STILL a very basic need for protection and security, as well as a tool. That coming from someone who was attacked by a coyote in their own backyard, in NJ of all places....so you have very little room to debate that point. That being said, There are too many idiots out there to have a 'free for all' with military grade gear... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 53 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: The right to bear arms was written into the constitution as a means to prevent citizens from being repressed by their own government. A tenant of our country, and however you want to define it, this basic concept should never be abandoned. See my last post above....Citizens should have the very same rights to carry as basic law enforcement, no more no less... If you want to ban all guns, you need to make all law enforcement 'English Bobbies' first... There is no magic static line, just a line that needs to be equivalent... You lend to the assumption that the police force is all we should need to be able to battle. If the idea is to protect us from our own government, then I contend that I should be allowed at least 21 nuclear missiles and anti-aircraft barrages. As another aside, the police force has access to tanks and fully automatic weaponry, and is becoming more militarized on a daily basis. Therefore, I should also be allowed to match all of these weapons as well. Basically, we long ago abandoned the basic principle by your definitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaximumHornetSting Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 hour ago, noonereal said: I just read his comments on Oprah, I'd want to run against her too. What bothers me is what he pays attention to. He was watching TV not reviewing the latest intel. Why people never speak to this is something I don't understand. Im not gonna lie Oprah would be better than trump. She isnt a big loud mouth. Shes not as reckless thats for certain... Overall she'd be a major improvement from a personality perspective... But! I would be a major hypocrite to complain about Trump then vote for Oprah. Why? Because shes also a celebrity like Trump with no political experience... The white house is not Hollywood... Atleast we used to be able to say that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, TheMaximumHornetSting said: Im not gonna lie Oprah would be better than trump. She isnt a big loud mouth. Shes not as reckless thats for certain... Overall she'd be a major improvement from a personality perspective... But! I would be a major hypocrite to complain about Trump then vote for Oprah. Why? Because shes also a celebrity like Trump with no political experience... The white house is not Hollywood... Atleast we used to be able to say that. i hope the country has learned, i know i have, how important it is to elect a president who understands the workings of the government forget his personality challenges, Tump has no clue how to be president Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 15 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: You lend to the assumption that the police force is all we should need to be able to battle. If the idea is to protect us from our own government, then I contend that I should be allowed at least 21 nuclear missiles and anti-aircraft barrages. As another aside, the police force has access to tanks and fully automatic weaponry, and is becoming more militarized on a daily basis. Therefore, I should also be allowed to match all of these weapons as well. Basically, we long ago abandoned the basic principle by your definitions. good points but i feel overall he came up with a fair compromise through reason keep in mind, the police could roll back it's military style weaponry thereby, according to trill's plan, make these weapons also inaccessible to civilians what is upsetting is seeing Trump come out in support of bumped up background checks! that ship has sailed, we all know that is a big ball of doing nothing we need gun reform, no more bs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaximumHornetSting Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 25 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said: You lend to the assumption that the police force is all we should need to be able to battle. If the idea is to protect us from our own government, then I contend that I should be allowed at least 21 nuclear missiles and anti-aircraft barrages. As another aside, the police force has access to tanks and fully automatic weaponry, and is becoming more militarized on a daily basis. Therefore, I should also be allowed to match all of these weapons as well. Basically, we long ago abandoned the basic principle by your definitions. Shit... If thats the case I want a stealth Fighter jet.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 10 minutes ago, TheMaximumHornetSting said: Shit... If thats the case I want a stealth Fighter jet.... Seriously. If the second amendment's premise was to put me in an arms race with the government, then it was tossed in the trash can long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 My overall point in these last couple of posts, is that, common sense regulation has been applied already through our history, and has obviously withstood constitutional scrutiny. It's well past time for some additional common sense regulation to be applied under the same pretenses of the past applications that keep me from bearing nuclear arms, tanks with live cannons and stealth aircraft with full weapons capabilities. Some of the job of the government is to protect me from you and me from myself. We get into wishy washy territory where some parts of the constitution infringe on other parts, and the supporter of one part gets precedence over a supporter of another part, due to, organization, campaign contributions and lobbying. When someone's right to life and happiness is being infringed on by the second amendment run rampant, there is no lobbyist or huge campaign contribution fund set aside by someone like the NRA, so they get thoughts and prayers for their loss and the gun lobby's supported piece of the constitution gets preferential treatment over potentially everyone else's right to life because the government can't protect me from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said: You lend to the assumption that the police force is all we should need to be able to battle. If the idea is to protect us from our own government, then I contend that I should be allowed at least 21 nuclear missiles and anti-aircraft barrages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 hour ago, noonereal said: i hope the country has learned, i know i have, how important it is to elect a president who understands the workings of the government forget his personality challenges, Tump has no clue how to be president Agreed. And yet, the country seems to be trucking along just fine overall. Interesting, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted February 19, 2018 Report Share Posted February 19, 2018 2 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said: You lend to the assumption that the police force is all we should need to be able to battle. If the idea is to protect us from our own government, then I contend that I should be allowed at least 21 nuclear missiles and anti-aircraft barrages. As another aside, the police force has access to tanks and fully automatic weaponry, and is becoming more militarized on a daily basis. Therefore, I should also be allowed to match all of these weapons as well. Basically, we long ago abandoned the basic principle by your definitions. This makes perfect sense at first glance, but is actually a looong way from abandonment of those principles. There is not nearly enough military to 'occupy' a couple states, never mind the whole country, and the military power/hardware you speak of is NOT the type of hardware that is controlled by any single man. That is why (my personal beliefs) set the bar at the local or civilian level, as that is where any real 'oppression' could come into play, with some civilians allowed to carry for their 'job', and an outright ban for everyone else.... Think of it this way.....If a cop tells me something, I had better listen or risk being shot...If someone in a military uniform gave me an order (while not operating as disaster 'police') I'm well within my rights to tell him to fuck off... The military has no authority to police the civilian population under normal circumstances... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.