|
|
Post by LordNelson on Aug 7, 2019 11:09:09 GMT -8
I’m good with common sense gun regulation/registration. I’m not good with the 21 year age limit. If our country can draft you and get you killed in a war at 18 years old, then you should be able to have a gun a drink a beer before that happens... 1 - Let me remind we have a volunteer military now. you and others here need to take that talking point out of your playbook. No 18 year old is forced to serve in the US military nowadays. Age 21 restriction would absolutely mitigate (not eliminate) High School mass shootings. I think it's insane some states allow teenagers to legally buy assault weapons. Especially when background checks are not properly carried out. It's so fucked up to live in a country where kids worry each day about shootings at their schools. 21 is arbitrary? Maybe, but you've got to draw the line somewhere and our Govt. needs to show an attempt to keep automatic killing machines out of the hands of teenagers. Then enforce the laws.
2 - Are assault weapons really 'guns' at all? Have you ever heard emergency room doctors talk about (or show) how unbelievably destructive assault weapons are to human tissue and bones? It's just sickening. Might as well take a point-blank shot from a 16 inch battleship gun. IMO, 'right to bear arms' should not include assault weapons. Our forefathers writing the 2nd amendment could have never dreamed how weapons would evolve, and how stupid we became at categorizing 'guns'. The current generation needs to apply more common sense (and bravery) to create a more livable society.
It's like some Kook wanting to apply the 2nd amendment for legally keeping a surface-to-air missile in his back yard. There's insanity on the right, too.
3 - The paranoia on the right about 'the government is coming for all our guns!' 'it's a slippery slope!' is off balance and whacked, IMO. Makes the left keep pecking away at the 2nd amendment. The middle ground is with BOTH sides applying more common sense. More talk of enforcing current gun laws and more discussion on how to keep killing machines out of teenage hands, recognizing assault rifles are NOT guns are brave and productive discussions to have. Both sides need to be smarter and brave to begin solving the growing gun problems the USA now has. Right now we're just waiting for the next one, because mankind is dumb.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 7, 2019 11:19:33 GMT -8
I’m good with common sense gun regulation/registration. I’m not good with the 21 year age limit. If our country can draft you and get you killed in a war at 18 years old, then you should be able to have a gun a drink a beer before that happens... 1 - Let me remind we have a volunteer military now. you and others here need to take that talking point out of your playbook. No 18 year old is forced to serve in the US military nowadays. Age 21 restriction would absolutely mitigate (not eliminate) High School mass shootings. I think it's insane some states allow teenagers to legally buy assault weapons. Especially when background checks are not properly carried out. It's so fucked up to live in a country where kids worry each day about shootings at their schools. 21 is arbitrary? Maybe, but you've got to draw the line somewhere and our Govt. needs to show an attempt to keep automatic killing machines out of the hands of teenagers. Then enforce the laws.
2 - Are assault weapons really 'guns' at all? Have you ever heard emergency room doctors talk about (or show) how unbelievably destructive assault weapons are to human tissue and bones? It's just sickening. Might as well take a point-blank shot from a 16 inch battleship gun. IMO, 'right to bear arms' should not include assault weapons. Our forefathers writing the 2nd amendment could have never dreamed how weapons would evolve, and how stupid we became at categorizing 'guns'. The current generation needs to apply more common sense (and bravery) to create a more livable society.
It's like some Kook wanting to apply the 2nd amendment for legally keeping a surface-to-air missile in his back yard. There's insanity on the right, too.
3 - The paranoia on the right about 'the government is coming for all our guns!' 'it's a slippery slope!' is off balance and whacked, IMO. Makes the left keep pecking away at the 2nd amendment. The middle ground is with BOTH sides applying more common sense. More talk of enforcing current gun laws and more discussion on how to keep killing machines out of teenage hands, recognizing assault rifles are NOT guns are brave and productive discussions to have. Both sides need to be smarter and brave to begin solving the growing gun problems the USA now has. Right now we're just waiting for the next one, because mankind is dumb.
The 2nd amendment does not allow you to have a nuke at your home. Somewhere between an air soft gun and a nuke everyone can agree. The problem I have with the DNC is you give them assault rifle ban and then they will come back for hand gun clips, then they will come for hand gun revolvers, then shot guns and 22s and then at some point air soft guns. They play the long game of incremental gains. Look at illegal immigration now vs just one administration ago. They are playing the long game as children of illegals born here can legally vote and change a red area to blue (see orange county). This will absolutely moves Texas blue in the not so distant future. They are openly advocated and encouraging the breaking of federal law so that this plays out for them. I dont trust the DNC one bit. The GOP is not much better but they are the lesser of the two evils. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 7, 2019 11:47:07 GMT -8
So now the DNC will tell us all (with the help of the so called media) that to be a vocal opponent of illegal immigration is the work of white supremacy and advocates mass shootings: Former Vice President Joe Biden says President Donald Trump is “fueling a literal carnage” in America with his incendiary rhetoric and racist attacks. The Democratic presidential front-runner says in Iowa that Trump is incapable of offering the moral leadership that has defined the presidency over the course of history. He says voters “cannot let this man be re-elected president of the United States of America.” Biden’s remarks come as Trump visits Texas and Ohio in the wake of two mass killings over the weekend. Biden says Trump’s “low energy” repudiation of the white supremacy connected to the El Paso massacre is not credible given the president’s attacks on immigrants and people of color. Of course Joe Biden does not then take credit for this madman's event: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 12:19:01 GMT -8
Legalese. "I have never instructed a witness...." Why the qualification on witness? Comey said he was instructed to do this long before he became a witness so she can arguably state she never instructed a "witness" to say something. She told the Director of the FBI, who wasn't a witness at the time, how to classify the Clinton email probe. I blame Bill Clinton for the way our so called leaders parse words. Trump has said some awful things that I dont agree with but Bill opened up Pandoras box to this method of lying that is now acceptable. The infamous "It all depends on what your definition of "is" is." with a smirk on his face. The first President Douchebag. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 12:21:38 GMT -8
I’m good with common sense gun regulation/registration. I’m not good with the 21 year age limit. If our country can draft you and get you killed in a war at 18 years old, then you should be able to have a gun a drink a beer before that happens... 1 - Let me remind we have a volunteer military now. you and others here need to take that talking point out of your playbook. No 18 year old is forced to serve in the US military nowadays. Age 21 restriction would absolutely mitigate (not eliminate) High School mass shootings. I think it's insane some states allow teenagers to legally buy assault weapons. Especially when background checks are not properly carried out. It's so fucked up to live in a country where kids worry each day about shootings at their schools. 21 is arbitrary? Maybe, but you've got to draw the line somewhere and our Govt. needs to show an attempt to keep automatic killing machines out of the hands of teenagers. Then enforce the laws.
2 - Are assault weapons really 'guns' at all? Have you ever heard emergency room doctors talk about (or show) how unbelievably destructive assault weapons are to human tissue and bones? It's just sickening. Might as well take a point-blank shot from a 16 inch battleship gun. IMO, 'right to bear arms' should not include assault weapons. Our forefathers writing the 2nd amendment could have never dreamed how weapons would evolve, and how stupid we became at categorizing 'guns'. The current generation needs to apply more common sense (and bravery) to create a more livable society.
It's like some Kook wanting to apply the 2nd amendment for legally keeping a surface-to-air missile in his back yard. There's insanity on the right, too.
3 - The paranoia on the right about 'the government is coming for all our guns!' 'it's a slippery slope!' is off balance and whacked, IMO. Makes the left keep pecking away at the 2nd amendment. The middle ground is with BOTH sides applying more common sense. More talk of enforcing current gun laws and more discussion on how to keep killing machines out of teenage hands, recognizing assault rifles are NOT guns are brave and productive discussions to have. Both sides need to be smarter and brave to begin solving the growing gun problems the USA now has. Right now we're just waiting for the next one, because mankind is dumb.
Joe Biden today - |
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 7, 2019 12:23:59 GMT -8
I’m good with common sense gun regulation/registration. I’m not good with the 21 year age limit. If our country can draft you and get you killed in a war at 18 years old, then you should be able to have a gun a drink a beer before that happens... 1 - Let me remind we have a volunteer military now. you and others here need to take that talking point out of your playbook. No 18 year old is forced to serve in the US military nowadays. Age 21 restriction would absolutely mitigate (not eliminate) High School mass shootings. I think it's insane some states allow teenagers to legally buy assault weapons. Especially when background checks are not properly carried out. It's so fucked up to live in a country where kids worry each day about shootings at their schools. 21 is arbitrary? Maybe, but you've got to draw the line somewhere and our Govt. needs to show an attempt to keep automatic killing machines out of the hands of teenagers. Then enforce the laws.
2 - Are assault weapons really 'guns' at all? Have you ever heard emergency room doctors talk about (or show) how unbelievably destructive assault weapons are to human tissue and bones? It's just sickening. Might as well take a point-blank shot from a 16 inch battleship gun. IMO, 'right to bear arms' should not include assault weapons. Our forefathers writing the 2nd amendment could have never dreamed how weapons would evolve, and how stupid we became at categorizing 'guns'. The current generation needs to apply more common sense (and bravery) to create a more livable society.
It's like some Kook wanting to apply the 2nd amendment for legally keeping a surface-to-air missile in his back yard. There's insanity on the right, too.
3 - The paranoia on the right about 'the government is coming for all our guns!' 'it's a slippery slope!' is off balance and whacked, IMO. Makes the left keep pecking away at the 2nd amendment. The middle ground is with BOTH sides applying more common sense. More talk of enforcing current gun laws and more discussion on how to keep killing machines out of teenage hands, recognizing assault rifles are NOT guns are brave and productive discussions to have. Both sides need to be smarter and brave to begin solving the growing gun problems the USA now has. Right now we're just waiting for the next one, because mankind is dumb.
The draft talking point is completely valid...you are required by law to register for the draft and can be drafted whenever they decide to institute a draft. The military has always had volunteers...and your right, right now it is all volunteer...but a draft could/would happen if we had a serious war. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 7, 2019 12:24:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 7, 2019 12:29:22 GMT -8
How do you make a statement like this and still have a job?
NEW YORK (AP) — MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace has apologized for falsely saying on her show that President Donald Trump was "talking about exterminating Latinos."
She apologized Tuesday on Twitter for a comment she made on her show the day before. She tweeted that her mistake wasn't intentional and that she was sorry.
Wallace was responding to a remark by USA Today columnist Raul Reyes, who was a guest on her afternoon show. Reyes had noted that Trump has talked about an infestation through illegal immigration, and the natural conclusion is to attempt an extermination.
Wallace was a communications director for former President George W. Bush and has been a harsh critic of Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 7, 2019 12:43:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 12:45:16 GMT -8
I’m good with common sense gun regulation/registration. I’m not good with the 21 year age limit. If our country can draft you and get you killed in a war at 18 years old, then you should be able to have a gun a drink a beer before that happens... 1 - Let me remind we have a volunteer military now. you and others here need to take that talking point out of your playbook. No 18 year old is forced to serve in the US military nowadays. Age 21 restriction would absolutely mitigate (not eliminate) High School mass shootings. I think it's insane some states allow teenagers to legally buy assault weapons. Especially when background checks are not properly carried out. It's so fucked up to live in a country where kids worry each day about shootings at their schools. 21 is arbitrary? Maybe, but you've got to draw the line somewhere and our Govt. needs to show an attempt to keep automatic killing machines out of the hands of teenagers. Then enforce the laws.
2 - Are assault weapons really 'guns' at all? Have you ever heard emergency room doctors talk about (or show) how unbelievably destructive assault weapons are to human tissue and bones? It's just sickening. Might as well take a point-blank shot from a 16 inch battleship gun. IMO, 'right to bear arms' should not include assault weapons. Our forefathers writing the 2nd amendment could have never dreamed how weapons would evolve, and how stupid we became at categorizing 'guns'. The current generation needs to apply more common sense (and bravery) to create a more livable society.
It's like some Kook wanting to apply the 2nd amendment for legally keeping a surface-to-air missile in his back yard. There's insanity on the right, too.
3 - The paranoia on the right about 'the government is coming for all our guns!' 'it's a slippery slope!' is off balance and whacked, IMO. Makes the left keep pecking away at the 2nd amendment. The middle ground is with BOTH sides applying more common sense. More talk of enforcing current gun laws and more discussion on how to keep killing machines out of teenage hands, recognizing assault rifles are NOT guns are brave and productive discussions to have. Both sides need to be smarter and brave to begin solving the growing gun problems the USA now has. Right now we're just waiting for the next one, because mankind is dumb.
"Our forefathers writing the 2nd amendment could have never dreamed how weapons would evolve..." So does the First Amendment not apply to public address systems, Television, radio and the internet? The forefathers were very clear in the Federalist Papers that the people should have access to the same type of firearms as the government to act as a check on the Federal government. Private citizens owned cannons which was the equivalent of artillery in their time. "It's so fucked up to live in a country where kids worry each day about shootings at their schools." Starting at Columbine in 1999 there have been 10 instances where someone went to a school and just started randomly shooting people. Most often with handguns and shotguns. The deadliest school shooting is the Virginia Tech shooting where 33 people were killed. He used handguns. 10 shootings in 20 years. In 2015/2016 there were 132,853 K-12 schools in the United States. A child in the U.S. is far more likely to be killed traveling to and from school than being at a school where a shooting occurred, let alone they being injured and/or killed in a school shooting. The 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban included some semi-automatic pistols. Anything over a clip with 10 rounds in it was considered an assault weapon. Funny enough the AR-15 with a couple of cosmetic items removed was perfectly legal under the so called assault weapons ban. The ban which was allowed to expire because it showed no statistical effect on the homicide by gun rate in the U.S. Have you seen what a .50 caliber handgun can do to human bone and tissue? Hollow point bullets? How about a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with slugs? Comparing to an AR-15 to a 16 inch battleship gun is so over the top ridiculous that it negates your point. A 16 inch battleship shell is literally the size of a man. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 12:45:54 GMT -8
1 - Let me remind we have a volunteer military now. you and others here need to take that talking point out of your playbook. No 18 year old is forced to serve in the US military nowadays. Age 21 restriction would absolutely mitigate (not eliminate) High School mass shootings. I think it's insane some states allow teenagers to legally buy assault weapons. Especially when background checks are not properly carried out. It's so fucked up to live in a country where kids worry each day about shootings at their schools. 21 is arbitrary? Maybe, but you've got to draw the line somewhere and our Govt. needs to show an attempt to keep automatic killing machines out of the hands of teenagers. Then enforce the laws.
2 - Are assault weapons really 'guns' at all? Have you ever heard emergency room doctors talk about (or show) how unbelievably destructive assault weapons are to human tissue and bones? It's just sickening. Might as well take a point-blank shot from a 16 inch battleship gun. IMO, 'right to bear arms' should not include assault weapons. Our forefathers writing the 2nd amendment could have never dreamed how weapons would evolve, and how stupid we became at categorizing 'guns'. The current generation needs to apply more common sense (and bravery) to create a more livable society.
It's like some Kook wanting to apply the 2nd amendment for legally keeping a surface-to-air missile in his back yard. There's insanity on the right, too.
3 - The paranoia on the right about 'the government is coming for all our guns!' 'it's a slippery slope!' is off balance and whacked, IMO. Makes the left keep pecking away at the 2nd amendment. The middle ground is with BOTH sides applying more common sense. More talk of enforcing current gun laws and more discussion on how to keep killing machines out of teenage hands, recognizing assault rifles are NOT guns are brave and productive discussions to have. Both sides need to be smarter and brave to begin solving the growing gun problems the USA now has. Right now we're just waiting for the next one, because mankind is dumb.
The draft talking point is completely valid...you are required by law to register for the draft and can be drafted whenever they decide to institute a draft. The military has always had volunteers...and your right, right now it is all volunteer...but a draft could/would happen if we had a serious war. Not to mention the fact that at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment the military was 100% voluntary. |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 12:51:03 GMT -8
How do you make a statement like this and still have a job? NEW YORK (AP) — MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace has apologized for falsely saying on her show that President Donald Trump was "talking about exterminating Latinos." She apologized Tuesday on Twitter for a comment she made on her show the day before. She tweeted that her mistake wasn't intentional and that she was sorry. Wallace was responding to a remark by USA Today columnist Raul Reyes, who was a guest on her afternoon show. Reyes had noted that Trump has talked about an infestation through illegal immigration, and the natural conclusion is to attempt an extermination. Wallace was a communications director for former President George W. Bush and has been a harsh critic of Trump. The odds the same TV personality keeps their job had they made a comment along the lines of "Obama wants police officers shot and killed" which is far less that "exterminating Latinos." What was even more telling is the guest she had on her program when she said it all but agreed with her and didn't bat an eye or say "Well, I don't think he said anything like that." Same network also went this far: An MSNBC host who helped put Trump in the White House now suspects he may actually want mass shootings. "Isn’t it OK to deduce that at this point this is what he wants? He is inciting hatred, inciting violence, inciting racism," Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski said Tuesday. |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 7, 2019 12:59:18 GMT -8
How do you make a statement like this and still have a job? NEW YORK (AP) — MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace has apologized for falsely saying on her show that President Donald Trump was "talking about exterminating Latinos." She apologized Tuesday on Twitter for a comment she made on her show the day before. She tweeted that her mistake wasn't intentional and that she was sorry. Wallace was responding to a remark by USA Today columnist Raul Reyes, who was a guest on her afternoon show. Reyes had noted that Trump has talked about an infestation through illegal immigration, and the natural conclusion is to attempt an extermination. Wallace was a communications director for former President George W. Bush and has been a harsh critic of Trump. The odds the same TV personality keeps their job had they made a comment along the lines of "Obama wants police officers shot and killed" which is far less that "exterminating Latinos." What was even more telling is the guest she had on her program when she said it all but agreed with her and didn't bat an eye or say "Well, I don't think he said anything like that." Same network also went this far: An MSNBC host who helped put Trump in the White House now suspects he may actually want mass shootings. "Isn’t it OK to deduce that at this point this is what he wants? He is inciting hatred, inciting violence, inciting racism," Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski said Tuesday. The amount of stupidity on that network amazes me |
|
|
|
Post by LordNelson on Aug 7, 2019 13:39:43 GMT -8
Comparing to an AR-15 to a 16 inch battleship gun is so over the top ridiculous that it negates your point. A 16 inch battleship shell is literally the size of a man. But it's a 'gun', right? Just a big gun attached to a boat. Where does the line get drawn on what a 'gun' is? Calling an assault weapon a 'gun' that is protected by the 2nd amendment is completely ridiculous IMO. I think there are some complete wackos on the right as well. You're insane if you think it's fine & dandy to sell an assault weapon to a 19 year old because that's 'freedom'. Think about what our society REALLY needs to be sustainable. It requires big picture thinking.
I lean right on most everything but I have NO problem with what Biden said. Assault weapons don't legally belong in our society. Battle the wackos on the left, but notice the wackos on the right as well.
"Oh no, they're coming for ALL our guns now!.." Get fucking real. Jeez.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 7, 2019 13:43:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 13:57:50 GMT -8
Comparing to an AR-15 to a 16 inch battleship gun is so over the top ridiculous that it negates your point. A 16 inch battleship shell is literally the size of a man. But it's a 'gun', right? Just a big gun attached to a boat. Where does the line get drawn on what a 'gun' is? Calling an assault weapon a 'gun' that is protected by the 2nd amendment is completely ridiculous IMO. I think there are some complete wackos on the right as well. You're insane if you think it's fine & dandy to sell an assault weapon to a 19 year old because that's 'freedom'. Think about what our society REALLY needs to be sustainable. It requires big picture thinking.
I lean right on most everything but I have NO problem with what Biden said. Assault weapons don't legally belong in our society. Battle the wackos on the left, but notice the wackos on the right as well.
"Oh no, they're coming for ALL our guns now!.." Get fucking real. Jeez.
You are getting to CBF level of argument. When I start to see a guy walking down the street with a 16 inch battleship gun then you have a comparison. It's the same ridiculous argument as "Why not nuclear weapons then?" The AR-15 has been sold to 19 year olds since 1960's. Hell, it was even in the Sears and Roebuck catalog. "Assault weapons don't legally belong in our society." Your opinion is not a fact and certainly not the law. It is one thing to say from this point forward the sale of AR-15's and the like is forbidden. It is quite another, and legally and historically unprecedented in this country, for the Government to say something legally sold is now illegal to own and we are going to come take it from you. Any attempt to do so would be immediately thrown out of Court under the Second Amendment. You know, the whole "Shall not be infringed" thing? |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 13:58:30 GMT -8
The odds the same TV personality keeps their job had they made a comment along the lines of "Obama wants police officers shot and killed" which is far less that "exterminating Latinos." What was even more telling is the guest she had on her program when she said it all but agreed with her and didn't bat an eye or say "Well, I don't think he said anything like that." Same network also went this far: An MSNBC host who helped put Trump in the White House now suspects he may actually want mass shootings. "Isn’t it OK to deduce that at this point this is what he wants? He is inciting hatred, inciting violence, inciting racism," Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski said Tuesday. The amount of stupidity on that network amazes me Frank Figliuzzi, the former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and a regular contributor to NBC News, told MSNBC's Brian Williams on Monday that President Trump's decision to fly flags at half-staff until Aug. 8 may very well be a tip of the cap to white supremacist groups. Here's what he said: The president's either getting really good advice and rejecting it, or he's getting really bad advice. We have to understand the adversary and the threat we're dealing with, and if we don't understand how they think, we'll never understand how to counter them, so it's the little things and the messaging that matters. The president says that we will fly our flags at half-mast until August 8, that's 8/8. Now I'm not going to imply that he did this deliberately, but I am using it as an example of the ignorance of the adversary demonstrated by the White House. The numbers 8/8 are very significant in the neo-Nazi and the white supremacy movement. Why? Because the letter 'H' is the eighth letter of the alphabet, and to them, the numbers 8/8 stand for 'Heil Hitler.' So we're going to be raising the flag back up at dusk on 8/8. No one's thinking about this. No one's giving the advice, or he's rejecting the advice." |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 13:59:50 GMT -8
Next level insanity at Twitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badger on Aug 7, 2019 15:51:25 GMT -8
But it's a 'gun', right? Just a big gun attached to a boat. Where does the line get drawn on what a 'gun' is? Calling an assault weapon a 'gun' that is protected by the 2nd amendment is completely ridiculous IMO. I think there are some complete wackos on the right as well. You're insane if you think it's fine & dandy to sell an assault weapon to a 19 year old because that's 'freedom'. Think about what our society REALLY needs to be sustainable. It requires big picture thinking.
I lean right on most everything but I have NO problem with what Biden said. Assault weapons don't legally belong in our society. Battle the wackos on the left, but notice the wackos on the right as well.
"Oh no, they're coming for ALL our guns now!.." Get fucking real. Jeez.
You are getting to CBF level of argument. When I start to see a guy walking down the street with a 16 inch battleship gun then you have a comparison. It's the same ridiculous argument as "Why not nuclear weapons then?" The AR-15 has been sold to 19 year olds since 1960's. Hell, it was even in the Sears and Roebuck catalog. "Assault weapons don't legally belong in our society." Your opinion is not a fact and certainly not the law. It is one thing to say from this point forward the sale of AR-15's and the like is forbidden. It is quite another, and legally and historically unprecedented in this country, for the Government to say something legally sold is now illegal to own and we are going to come take it from you. Any attempt to do so would be immediately thrown out of Court under the Second Amendment. You know, the whole "Shall not be infringed" thing? You mean the clause the starts, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...” |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 7, 2019 16:33:03 GMT -8
Next level insanity at Twitter. On Monday, Black Lives Matter Louisville leader Chanelle Helm said in a live video of the protest outside of McConnell's Highlands-area home that instead of falling and injuring his shoulder over the weekend, the GOP leader "should have broken his little raggedy, wrinkled-(expletive) neck." |
|
|
|
Post by Badger on Aug 7, 2019 17:05:49 GMT -8
Next level insanity at Twitter. On Monday, Black Lives Matter Louisville leader Chanelle Helm said in a live video of the protest outside of McConnell's Highlands-area home that instead of falling and injuring his shoulder over the weekend, the GOP leader "should have broken his little raggedy, wrinkled-(expletive) neck." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s campaign tweeted out a photo of satirical tombstones over the weekend, including one featuring an election opponent’s name, hours after the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, that claimed the lives of 22 people. The tombstones named Amy McGrath, his main Democratic opponent in the 2020 Senate race for Kentucky, as well as Judge Merrick Garland, whose nomination to the Supreme Court he blocked during the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency. |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 7, 2019 19:30:01 GMT -8
No big deal right? Just a member of Congress publicly doxing his constituents who support a political candidate he doesn't like. There is only one reason he is doing this. He wants the angry mob to intimidate these people. This country is getting closer to civil war than I ever thought I would live to see. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 7, 2019 20:47:09 GMT -8
Stay classy Hollywood.
A controversial movie about privileged vacationers hunting “deplorables” for sport is ruffling feathers more than a month before its scheduled release and after tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.
“The Hunt” is billed as a satire that follows wealthy thrill-seekers taking a private jet to a five-star resort where they embark on a “deeply rewarding” expedition that involves hunting down and killing designated humans. The Hollywood Reporter reported on Tuesday that “Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire" following the shootings after ESPN reportedly pulled a trailer for the film that had been previously cleared to air on the sports network.
“The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum's Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals,” THR’s Kim Masters wrote. “It features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the elites pick off their prey.”
According to the Hollywood trade publication, characters in the film refer to the victims as “deplorables,” which is what Hillary Clinton famously dubbed Trump supporters during the 2016 election. The report noted that a character asks, "Did anyone see what our ratf--ker-in-chief just did?"
|
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 8, 2019 6:24:36 GMT -8
So Bill Gates thought he could fight the natural forces:
* The Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching initiative, designed and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was a multiyear effort to dramatically improve student outcomes by increasing students' access to effective teaching.
* Overall, however, the initiative did not achieve its goals for student achievement or graduation, particularly for LIM students.
* With minor exceptions, by 2014–2015, student achievement, access to effective teaching, and dropout rates were not dramatically better than they were for similar sites that did not participate in the Intensive Partnerships initiative.
Spending this money on the disabled and the elderly would've been much more beneficial to the society.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 8, 2019 7:10:53 GMT -8
/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1159370022474657794&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2F
|
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 8, 2019 8:02:42 GMT -8
/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1159370022474657794&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2F Another idiot |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 8:07:05 GMT -8
You are getting to CBF level of argument. When I start to see a guy walking down the street with a 16 inch battleship gun then you have a comparison. It's the same ridiculous argument as "Why not nuclear weapons then?" The AR-15 has been sold to 19 year olds since 1960's. Hell, it was even in the Sears and Roebuck catalog. "Assault weapons don't legally belong in our society." Your opinion is not a fact and certainly not the law. It is one thing to say from this point forward the sale of AR-15's and the like is forbidden. It is quite another, and legally and historically unprecedented in this country, for the Government to say something legally sold is now illegal to own and we are going to come take it from you. Any attempt to do so would be immediately thrown out of Court under the Second Amendment. You know, the whole "Shall not be infringed" thing? You mean the clause the starts, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...” The Federalist papers written by Madison and Hamilton made it clear that the "well regulated Militia" referred to the people and their individual right to have weapons. The Federalist Papers assert that local militias (as opposed to a "regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country") EXIST AS A FORMIDABLE CHECK ON FEDERAL POWER. In Federalist 46, Madison writes of the local militia versus a national military: It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. [Federalist 46] Bearing arms is "the right of the people" who would make up a state militia, which protects us from national tyranny (even if Madison was overly generous in describing the efficacy of militiamen during the Revolutionary War). In Federalist 29, published 228 years ago, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton concurs as to why militias are necessary: If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29] People need firearms proficiency to defend against young soldiers of a standing army who might be, in Madison's words, "rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power." Hamilton also elaborates on ideas that would later lead to the Second Amendment, and particularly the notion of a well-regulated militia. He is unambiguous in Federalist 29 on the point that people have a right to their weapons, and that they need not attend formal military training to be part of a militia, which would be "as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."
By definition, then, a "well-regulated militia" would no longer seem to include the National Guard, which does require formal and sustained military training by the regular Army. At any rate, in its present incarnation, the Guard — as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan — is a "state" force in name only. In practice, it is a part-time Army Reserve: a national army that happens also to be used for natural disasters in home states. Hamilton writes further of the requirements of militia members: Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. [Federalist 29] Based on the above it is clear that the people who actually drafted the Second Amendment were referring to the people owning guns as a final line of defense against the Federal government or other army. An argument can be made that the discussion of them assembling once or twice a year would mean some kind of organized training. I would not be opposed to a requirement that if you purchase a assault weapon that it would require training at a professional gun range (not necessarily run by the State). |
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 8, 2019 8:30:33 GMT -8
Yup no media bias whatsoever.
McConnell's campaign was asked about a picture of a bunch of guys in team Mitch shirts posing for pictures with an AOC cutout pretending to grope and kiss her and they responded saying it wasn't the campaign and it was high school kids. Basically saying high school kids do stupid shit. They went on to say the conduct was inappropriate. The Daily Beast then runs a story with the headline that McConnell's campaign's response was "Boys will be boys." which isn't what they said. Naturally AOC only responded to their headline and the story takes off from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 8, 2019 8:52:57 GMT -8
Yup no media bias whatsoever. McConnell's campaign was asked about a picture of a bunch of guys in team Mitch shirts posing for pictures with an AOC cutout pretending to grope and kiss her and they responded saying it wasn't the campaign and it was high school kids. Basically saying high school kids do stupid shit. They went on to say the conduct was inappropriate. The Daily Beast then runs a story with the headline that McConnell's campaign's response was "Boys will be boys." which isn't what they said. Naturally AOC only responded to their headline and the story takes off from there. The so called media is a mouthpiece for the DNC. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 9:57:50 GMT -8
You mean the clause the starts, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...” The Federalist papers written by Madison and Hamilton made it clear that the "well regulated Militia" referred to the people and their individual right to have weapons. The Federalist Papers assert that local militias (as opposed to a "regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country") EXIST AS A FORMIDABLE CHECK ON FEDERAL POWER. In Federalist 46, Madison writes of the local militia versus a national military: It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. [Federalist 46] Bearing arms is "the right of the people" who would make up a state militia, which protects us from national tyranny (even if Madison was overly generous in describing the efficacy of militiamen during the Revolutionary War). In Federalist 29, published 228 years ago, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton concurs as to why militias are necessary: If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29] People need firearms proficiency to defend against young soldiers of a standing army who might be, in Madison's words, "rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power." Hamilton also elaborates on ideas that would later lead to the Second Amendment, and particularly the notion of a well-regulated militia. He is unambiguous in Federalist 29 on the point that people have a right to their weapons, and that they need not attend formal military training to be part of a militia, which would be "as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."
By definition, then, a "well-regulated militia" would no longer seem to include the National Guard, which does require formal and sustained military training by the regular Army. At any rate, in its present incarnation, the Guard — as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan — is a "state" force in name only. In practice, it is a part-time Army Reserve: a national army that happens also to be used for natural disasters in home states. Hamilton writes further of the requirements of militia members: Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. [Federalist 29] Based on the above it is clear that the people who actually drafted the Second Amendment were referring to the people owning guns as a final line of defense against the Federal government or other army. An argument can be made that the discussion of them assembling once or twice a year would mean some kind of organized training. I would not be opposed to a requirement that if you purchase a assault weapon that it would require training at a professional gun range (not necessarily run by the State). At your own admission, regular weapons care, safety and readiness should be requirement for all gun owners at least once per year. That would befit the definition of a well-regulated militia. I would be more than happy with a requirement that all firearm owners attend a mandatory safety course annually and are required to have at least 20 hours of documented range time annually. Those steps must then be combined with reasonable punishments for failing to meet those requirements. The issue then becomes, however, how is this information tracked and audited for accuracy? Who gets to store that information? Unless you establish a firearms registry there is no way to ensure every gun owner meets the requirement of a well-regulated militia (which leads into the slippery slope argument about establishing a firearm registry). It was a lot easier 230 years ago when (and I am doing a bit of generalizing here) white male = gun owner and not white male = not gun owner. TRO |
|
