Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

26
Dobe wrote: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:44 pm Two questions from a lurking conservative:
Why are you so down on the NRA?
If you don’t think the NRA has help us keep our rights, why would the gun grabbers continually complain of the NRA’s lobbying successes?

And secondly, and I state this with respect of this group, if you are concerned with red flag laws and possible confiscation, why vote liberal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Assuming you're genuinely interested.

As to the NRA question:

https://theliberalgunclub.com/why-as-a- ... t-the-nra/

https://theliberalgunclub.com/the-nra-i ... fraid-yet/

Then add a dash of Ted and Wayne, and I'll take a hard pass for $1000 Alex.

As to the second question:

https://theliberalgunclub.com/the-nra-i ... fraid-yet/

And
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics ... index.html

And
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... ess-second

Combine that with the fact that most of us are diametrically opposed to the rest of the republicans agenda, and yeah, hard pass. As Marlene notes, equal rights, healthcare, the environment, etc all matter as well.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

27
Dobe wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:10 am
Marlene wrote:It’s real fucking hard to deal with things like equal rights in employment and housing by losing them in a boating accident.
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what that means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It means that I could hide an illegal gun and still be armed, if things really came to that. It would be much harder for me to do any number of things like recognize my marriage, protect my queer ass from employment or housing discrimination, keep the toxic effluents out of my waterways, make corporations contribute to the commons as much as they take out, etc etc etc.

I’m not a fan of the Democratic Party and my politics are definitely left of liberal, but when faced with the choice between voting for democrats or republicans, my choice is between people who would make a world in which a gun was the only power or protection I had (republicans) and people who would do a bad job of moving the world in a direction I might hope for in some ways, do less active harm in others, and maybe screw around with the legal status of my guns. I don’t get what I actually want either way, but I am no more aggrieved by the Democrats’ general take on gun policy than I am on their general support for killing people across the globe for reasons short of absolute necessity. In fact, their slightly less enthusiastic support for imperial adventure killing compared to Republicans’ seems more important than whether my guns are legal just as a single issue.

I say this as someone who is very serious about guns, but maybe not super invested in the state’s approval so much as what the state does with it’s larger powers.
Image

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

28
shinzen wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:44 am Combine that with the fact that most of us are diametrically opposed to the rest of the republicans agenda, and yeah, hard pass. As Marlene notes, equal rights, healthcare, the environment, etc all matter as well.
To me, at least, these things matter even more than absolute 2A rights. I've voted for gun control Dems my entire life because the other human rights mean more to me and I've been able to accommodate restrictions on 2A rights (welcome to California). However, the assault weapon ban is a difficult thing for me to swallow because it destroys rather than limits the 2A. While I will likely vote for someone like Sanders or Warren that includes an assault weapon ban, I would not vote for Biden with an AWB. Add in confiscation to a policy and I won't vote for any of them.

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

29
Because, I believe that the Liberals are actually apt to protect most (but not all) of our rights, and I believe, no, I can DEMONSTRATE that the Republicans happily attack ALL our other rights and intend and have indicated, that at some point they will take guns away from People of Color, Liberals, Democrats, non-Christians, and anyone else they think could be a threat.

Remember: Modern gun control started when REPUBLICAN Governor Ronald Reagan was SO upset by Black Panthers LEGALLY carrying rifles into and around the state capitol.
Black men with guns scared White "conservatives" to believe they had to take those guns away.

Besides, given THIS SCOTUS and the 150 judges Trump and MoscowMitch appointed, I don't believe a Democratic Congress and President could get such a law to be considered Constitutional.
However, If Trump starts looking to seize guns, again from the targets I listed, I believe those same judges and justices will continue to do what they have done--give him a pass.

It is my personal opinion that Dobe is looking at it too simplistically (and is not alone) and needs to consider the whole penumbra of how Liberals vs ReThugs look at ALL our rights, and how much they do or do not respect them.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

30
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:57 am Remember: Modern gun control started when REPUBLICAN Governor Ronald Reagan was SO upset by Black Panthers LEGALLY carrying rifles into and around the state capitol.
This isn’t true.

The open carry protest at the capitol was about the Mulford act, so certainly came after the event(s) that inspired the act.

Whether Mulford can be thought of as the start of modern gun control is definitely less than clear cut. GCA ‘68 doesn’t resemble it at all. It’s 25 years ahead of AWB ‘92. It’s not part of a trend of similar laws. I don’t know if there are a rash of state restrictions around that time or not. Not sure what would make one call it the start of modern gun control.
Image

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

31
Mulford was state and local and those types of laws go way back.
Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.
A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records. Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law.
Originally enacted in 1934 in response to mafia crimes, the National Firearms Act (NFA) imposes a $200 tax and a registration requirement on the making and transfer of certain guns, including shotguns and rifles with barrels shorter than 18 inches (“short-barreled”), machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers, and specific firearms labeled as “any other weapons” by the NFA. Most guns are excluded from the Act.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 made it illegal to sell guns to certain people (including convicted felons) and required federal firearms licensees (FFLs; people who are licensed by the federal government to sell firearms) to maintain customer records. This Act was overturned by the 1968 Gun Control Act.
https://gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control/

The National Gun Control Act of 1968 was the first major legislation in the modern era.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

33
YankeeTarheel wrote: It is my personal opinion that Dobe is looking at it too simplistically (and is not alone) and needs to consider the whole penumbra of how Liberals vs ReThugs look at ALL our rights, and how much they do or do not respect them.
Actually, I’m seeking an understanding of the other side, and keeping myself respectful during the dialogue. Note I haven’t insulted any Democrats nor anyone here personally. I didn’t even call the Democrats thugs.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

34
Marlene's political mind eats most folks on this board whole and shits out the bones.

She very appropriately notes the nuances of human rights and compares them to gun rights. No one can tell if you're a gun owner while you're walking down the street, but they can sure as hell tell if you're a same sex couple. This is why I am a Fourteenth Amendment Second Amendment supporter. Persons. The 14th starts with "persons". And the 14th incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states. If it comes down to it, I will support human rights over gun rights and keep an illegal firearm--which I do not now own.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

35
Marlene wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:40 am
Originally enacted in 1934 in response to mafia crimes
The way this gets uncritically repeated drives me crazy. Look at US politics in 1934 and tell me this is about mafia not about leftist insurrection.
Exactly. The New Deal was passed in part because of 2A.
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

36
CDFingers wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:51 am Marlene's political mind eats most folks on this board whole and shits out the bones.

She very appropriately notes the nuances of human rights and compares them to gun rights. No one can tell if you're a gun owner while you're walking down the street, but they can sure as hell tell if you're a same sex couple. This is why I am a Fourteenth Amendment Second Amendment supporter. Persons. The 14th starts with "persons". And the 14th incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states. If it comes down to it, I will support human rights over gun rights and keep an illegal firearm--which I do not now own.

CDFingers
My essential point has NOT been negated:
Republicans and Conservatives will, WITHOUT HESITATION, take guns away from anyone who isn't a White "Conservative", particularly POC, Liberals, Progressives, Muslims, and LGBTQ folks.

The hair-splitting nitpicking point that the PROPOSED Mulford Act was why the Panthers who were doing what the police weren't--patrolling their neighborhoods, armed, marched on the Capitol, seems to be THE action that led Ronald Reagan witnessed that firmed his decision to sign the bill. Again, it does NOT negate my point.

As for "Modern"--the Mulford Act was 1967--52 years ago. That there were acts, ways and means to control certain firearms, and who had them (the Jim Crow South of course) does not change the fact that in the late 1960s, the Republicans, the "Conservatives" in America once TR left office, actively began embracing racism, and that meant taking guns out of Black hands.

I suggest everyone look at the recent cartoon in the "yuks" thread about how different shooters with semi-auto rifles are viewed.

Marlene merely annoys me with her persistent refusal to seek anything but the most offensive ways to express herself. That's her problem, none of my business.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

37
Yeah, I also find it pretty annoying that someone stands up for the rights of persons not straight white Anglo Saxon males with a jobs and health care. [/sarc]

Why were those neighbors "cop watching"? Because the cops not only would not police their neighborhoods, the cops would arrest black men and plant drugs on them.
The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while they were conducting what would later be termed copwatching.[1] They garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[2][3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

We have to note how St. Ronnie couched the Act in platitudes that we now know were complete hooey. So, if you're a person of color or a member of any other marginalized group, you can expect the same from the hapless Republicans who in a heart beat will take your rights away as long as they get to keep their money as well as some of yours. That's really an inhumane way to run a party, but there it is.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

38
Marlene wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:52 am It means that I could hide an illegal gun and still be armed, if things really came to that. It would be much harder for me to do any number of things like recognize my marriage, protect my queer ass from employment or housing discrimination
This is exactly why I've voted Dem even though it messes with my ability to own a SP-01 decocker, even if I go through the background check, wait 10 days and settle for 10 round magazines. Marlene is a real person. There are 100s of thousands of other real persons with similar life stories, be it LGBT, immigrant, minority, disabled. I am a white middle class male. The least I can do with my privilege is vote to put Marlene on equal footing until the day my "species" white-ass hegemony falls into the obscurity of equality.

That is, until the candidate raises the specter of confiscation. To me, that is no different than someone running on blacks to the back of the bus or LGBTQ can't marry. It is absolutely regressive and it is absolutely unconstitutional.

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

39
K9s wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:11 pm
senorgrand wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:12 pm But we are going the wrong way, FAST. The NRA has fucked us over....
The NRA has f**d the U.S. over. That was the plan all along since the 1990s, methinks.
Actually it started in '77 when a band of ultraright John Birchers hijacked the NRA board, effectively polarizing a basic tenet of the Bill of Rights along party lines. That, IMNSHO, is why NRA membership represents less than 4% of gun owners and shrinking while more liberal progressive gun groups are popping up and growing. Why don't we have more influence? Partially because we don't do a very good job of demonstrating that an anti-gun mentality isn't a Litmus test for Liberal cred nor do we manage to disabuse candidates that their base isn't a monolithic gang of gun banners.
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

40
Dreamsinger wrote:
K9s wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:11 pm
senorgrand wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:12 pm But we are going the wrong way, FAST. The NRA has fucked us over....
The NRA has f**d the U.S. over. That was the plan all along since the 1990s, methinks.
Actually it started in '77 when a band of ultraright John Birchers hijacked the NRA board, effectively polarizing a basic tenet of the Bill of Rights along party lines. That, IMNSHO, is why NRA membership represents less than 4% of gun owners and shrinking while more liberal progressive gun groups are popping up and growing. Why don't we have more influence? Partially because we don't do a very good job of demonstrating that an anti-gun mentality isn't a Litmus test for Liberal cred nor do we manage to disabuse candidates that their base isn't a monolithic gang of gun banners.
Yet, you rarely hear democratic candidates campaign on preserving 2A rights. That's why the right gets the 2A vote.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

41
Dobe wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:44 am
Actually, I’m seeking an understanding of the other side, and keeping myself respectful during the dialogue. Note I haven’t insulted any Democrats nor anyone here personally. I didn’t even call the Democrats thugs.
This needs to be highlighted and repeated. If we make assumptions about every Conservative that wanders in here, we're no better than the froth-at-the-mouth crowd on the other side.

Assumptions and assertions don't mean jack if we can't let others challenge them.
If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory. - Mickey Kaus, The New Republic

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

42
Thank you. I believe that is a good start.
I’m a member of many different gun forums. It’s almost humorous, in a way. Some of what I have read here is what I have read on the conservative gun forums, but with a conservative twist.

Everyone believes he/she is right. That’s the nature of humanity, isn’t it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

43
Dobe wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:59 am
I have read and read the responses to my questions. Most don’t believe there will be a confiscation, and some feel that the NRA is responsible for the confiscation hype.
I can’t be the only one on this forum who has watched the Democratic candidates speak of “assault weapons” ban and confiscation.

I’m not a single issue voter either, but this is a gun forum. It’s a liberal gun forum; the question begged to be asked.
I passed this by without meaning to because, y'know, work, cats and a certain gun customizing company is baffling me while taking too long to get my new revolver back to me.

Anyway, I didn't watch the debate but it's my understanding that you watched ONE candidate speak of confiscation. As covered elsewhere on this forum and in the news, Beto is done in any American political forum unless he runs for mayor of Someplace, Massachusetts. And, as covered on the news that (sorry) most Conservatives don't watch,...there's no fuckin' way. There is and will be no President elected who will be able to pick up the phone and order a firearms confiscation. That's pretty much the point to us being us. We're not Britain and we're not Australia. Not even a Congressional majority can make it past the Supreme Court. Again, it does not speak well for Mr. O'Rourke that someone needs to school him on American reality.

Confiscation is a sham. And since the NRA won't shut up about it, they ARE responsible for the hysteria surrounding the topic.
If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory. - Mickey Kaus, The New Republic

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

44
MayhemVI wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:46 am
Dobe wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:59 am
I have read and read the responses to my questions. Most don’t believe there will be a confiscation, and some feel that the NRA is responsible for the confiscation hype.
I can’t be the only one on this forum who has watched the Democratic candidates speak of “assault weapons” ban and confiscation.

I’m not a single issue voter either, but this is a gun forum. It’s a liberal gun forum; the question begged to be asked.
I passed this by without meaning to because, y'know, work, cats and a certain gun customizing company is baffling me while taking too long to get my new revolver back to me.

Anyway, I didn't watch the debate but it's my understanding that you watched ONE candidate speak of confiscation. As covered elsewhere on this forum and in the news, Beto is done in any American political forum unless he runs for mayor of Someplace, Massachusetts. And, as covered on the news that (sorry) most Conservatives don't watch,...there's no fuckin' way. There is and will be no President elected who will be able to pick up the phone and order a firearms confiscation. That's pretty much the point to us being us. We're not Britain and we're not Australia. Not even a Congressional majority can make it past the Supreme Court. Again, it does not speak well for Mr. O'Rourke that someone needs to school him on American reality.

Confiscation is a sham. And since the NRA won't shut up about it, they ARE responsible for the hysteria surrounding the topic.
Trump can get away with it.

Because he'll only confiscate guns from POC, Libs, Dems, Progs, Muslims, and LGBTQs. Count on it. He'll do it. It's in his mind already. On any excuse.
And, like ALL the Philandro Castle murders by police, the NRA will stand mute--or cheer.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

45
YankeeTarheel wrote:
MayhemVI wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:46 am
Dobe wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:59 am
I have read and read the responses to my questions. Most don’t believe there will be a confiscation, and some feel that the NRA is responsible for the confiscation hype.
I can’t be the only one on this forum who has watched the Democratic candidates speak of “assault weapons” ban and confiscation.

I’m not a single issue voter either, but this is a gun forum. It’s a liberal gun forum; the question begged to be asked.
I passed this by without meaning to because, y'know, work, cats and a certain gun customizing company is baffling me while taking too long to get my new revolver back to me.

Anyway, I didn't watch the debate but it's my understanding that you watched ONE candidate speak of confiscation. As covered elsewhere on this forum and in the news, Beto is done in any American political forum unless he runs for mayor of Someplace, Massachusetts. And, as covered on the news that (sorry) most Conservatives don't watch,...there's no fuckin' way. There is and will be no President elected who will be able to pick up the phone and order a firearms confiscation. That's pretty much the point to us being us. We're not Britain and we're not Australia. Not even a Congressional majority can make it past the Supreme Court. Again, it does not speak well for Mr. O'Rourke that someone needs to school him on American reality.

Confiscation is a sham. And since the NRA won't shut up about it, they ARE responsible for the hysteria surrounding the topic.
Trump can get away with it.

Because he'll only confiscate guns from POC, Libs, Dems, Progs, Muslims, and LGBTQs. Count on it. He'll do it. It's in his mind already. On any excuse.
And, like ALL the Philandro Castle murders by police, the NRA will stand mute--or cheer.
I wouldn’t put up with that reasoning even with a conservative talking about Obama. I can only assume you were being hyperbolic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

46
Assume away. Trump ALREADY said that Chris Cuomo, for his on-screen rant, was "crazy" and should therefore be barred from owning a gun. An "enemy" should be disarmed because "Dr." Trump, the eminent psychologist, assessed Cuomo, and, in his expert professional opinion, Cuomo is psychologically unfit to own a gun. "crazy" :sarcasm:

Meanwhile, Trump has pushed to have another "enemy", Andrew McCabe, indicted, charged and sent to prison for a minor infraction, because McCabe led the Russian investigation into Trump.
He's also pushing to have the same for James Comey, and I'll bet he's trying to get Barr to press charges against Hillary Clinton as well. Luckily, it's clear the Grand Jury knows Barr's team is full of shit and that this doesn't even qualify as the proverbial "Ham Sandwich."

So the idea that Trump uses ANYTHING against his "enemies" should not be taken as hyperbole.

If you have a problem with my statement as inappropriate, I have no idea what you mean by "wouldn't put up with that", unless you plan to complain to the admins and moderators, which is perfectly within your rights.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

47
YankeeTarheel wrote:Assume away. Trump ALREADY said that Chris Cuomo, for his on-screen rant, was "crazy" and should therefore be barred from owning a gun. An "enemy" should be disarmed because "Dr." Trump, the eminent psychologist, assessed Cuomo, and, in his expert professional opinion, Cuomo is psychologically unfit to own a gun. "crazy" :sarcasm:

Meanwhile, Trump has pushed to have another "enemy", Andrew McCabe, indicted, charged and sent to prison for a minor infraction, because McCabe led the Russian investigation into Trump.
He's also pushing to have the same for James Comey, and I'll bet he's trying to get Barr to press charges against Hillary Clinton as well. Luckily, it's clear the Grand Jury knows Barr's team is full of shit and that this doesn't even qualify as the proverbial "Ham Sandwich."

So the idea that Trump use ANYTHING against his "enemies" should not be taken as hyperbole.

If you have a problem with my statement as inappropriate, I have no idea what you mean by "wouldn't put up with that", unless you plan to complain to the admins and moderators, which is perfectly within your rights.
I would begin by just slowing down. I didn’t join this forum to argue, but rather to learn from an opposing side. But you seem to be on the edge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

48
Dobe wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:21 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:Assume away. Trump ALREADY said that Chris Cuomo, for his on-screen rant, was "crazy" and should therefore be barred from owning a gun. An "enemy" should be disarmed because "Dr." Trump, the eminent psychologist, assessed Cuomo, and, in his expert professional opinion, Cuomo is psychologically unfit to own a gun. "crazy" :sarcasm:

Meanwhile, Trump has pushed to have another "enemy", Andrew McCabe, indicted, charged and sent to prison for a minor infraction, because McCabe led the Russian investigation into Trump.
He's also pushing to have the same for James Comey, and I'll bet he's trying to get Barr to press charges against Hillary Clinton as well. Luckily, it's clear the Grand Jury knows Barr's team is full of shit and that this doesn't even qualify as the proverbial "Ham Sandwich."

So the idea that Trump use ANYTHING against his "enemies" should not be taken as hyperbole.

If you have a problem with my statement as inappropriate, I have no idea what you mean by "wouldn't put up with that", unless you plan to complain to the admins and moderators, which is perfectly within your rights.
I would begin by just slowing down. I didn’t join this forum to argue, but rather to learn from an opposing side. But you seem to be on the edge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In all fairness I am on edge, but not with you. I just stick up for myself and my positions unless someone can show either my facts or my logic is in error. Until I am just stubborn. The fact that some my find my views and analysis unorthodox doesn't concern me, unless they find an error in them--a factual or logical error.

I have been on edge since Trump was elected. And the next morning I, with my wife's 100% agreement, decided to become a gun owner and learn how to shoot the damn things, at least semi-competently. While I enjoy shooting and the mechanics of guns, and may well have enjoyed being a gunsmith, I still wish that decision hadn't been forced on me, by the practical need to recognize that Charlottesville could happen anywhere, including here, in NJ.

I don't pretend that guns' sole purpose isn't to kill. It is. Every one of my guns was designed and built for that purpose, and if I wasn't OK with that, I wouldn't own them. And, every single day, I hope with all my being I never have to use them for that.

Sig P320 RX 9mm
H-K VP9 9mm
Ruger 1771 .357/.38
Beretta Cx4 Storm 9mm
Kel-Tec Sub2k 9mm (Beretta mags)
Marlin JM1894 .357/.38
Windham Hunter, AR-10 .308
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

49
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:17 pm Assume away. Trump ALREADY said that Chris Cuomo, for his on-screen rant, was "crazy" and should therefore be barred from owning a gun. An "enemy" should be disarmed because "Dr." Trump, the eminent psychologist, assessed Cuomo, and, in his expert professional opinion, Cuomo is psychologically unfit to own a gun. "crazy" :sarcasm:

Meanwhile, Trump has pushed to have another "enemy", Andrew McCabe, indicted, charged and sent to prison for a minor infraction, because McCabe led the Russian investigation into Trump.
He's also pushing to have the same for James Comey, and I'll bet he's trying to get Barr to press charges against Hillary Clinton as well. Luckily, it's clear the Grand Jury knows Barr's team is full of shit and that this doesn't even qualify as the proverbial "Ham Sandwich."

So the idea that Trump uses ANYTHING against his "enemies" should not be taken as hyperbole.

Y'know, I was really hoping this board would be different...but when do I ever get what I want?

As with Beto, as with BoneSpur; what they say and what is actually going to happen doesn't need to be obvious to them, it needs to be obvious to us.

While your indictments of Trump above are all well founded, your conclusion in your previous post is hogwash. Trump isn't going to disarm anybody, the people who work for him aren't going to confiscate anything. And you know as well as everyone else here that Donnie talks through his ass. Constantly. The next anything that comes up, think of the stupidest comment anyone can make about it...and wait for Donnie to say it. As we knew going in, and what others are dragging themselves around to figuring out, Dear Leader Donnie is nothing but talk.
If you have a problem with my statement as inappropriate, I have no idea what you mean by "wouldn't put up with that", unless you plan to complain to the admins and moderators, which is perfectly within your rights.
No no no, that's not what he said and I shouldn't have to point that out. He's not letting an absurd assertion go unchallenged. That's it. And here on a LIBERAL forum, where we welcome vigorous debate and don't take opposing arguments personally (which makes us the aforementioned LIBERALS), we should possibly give our challengers the benefit of the doubt.

Another way of putting it: I have no intention of giving Conservatives the opportunity to say about me what I say about them.
If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory. - Mickey Kaus, The New Republic

ABC/WaPo poll: majority for UBCs, ERPOs, bans, compulsory surrender; firearm prohibition would reduce mass shootings

50
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Dobe wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:21 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:Assume away. Trump ALREADY said that Chris Cuomo, for his on-screen rant, was "crazy" and should therefore be barred from owning a gun. An "enemy" should be disarmed because "Dr." Trump, the eminent psychologist, assessed Cuomo, and, in his expert professional opinion, Cuomo is psychologically unfit to own a gun. "crazy" :sarcasm:

Meanwhile, Trump has pushed to have another "enemy", Andrew McCabe, indicted, charged and sent to prison for a minor infraction, because McCabe led the Russian investigation into Trump.
He's also pushing to have the same for James Comey, and I'll bet he's trying to get Barr to press charges against Hillary Clinton as well. Luckily, it's clear the Grand Jury knows Barr's team is full of shit and that this doesn't even qualify as the proverbial "Ham Sandwich."

So the idea that Trump use ANYTHING against his "enemies" should not be taken as hyperbole.

If you have a problem with my statement as inappropriate, I have no idea what you mean by "wouldn't put up with that", unless you plan to complain to the admins and moderators, which is perfectly within your rights.
I would begin by just slowing down. I didn’t join this forum to argue, but rather to learn from an opposing side. But you seem to be on the edge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In all fairness I am on edge, but not with you. I just stick up for myself and my positions unless someone can show either my facts or my logic is in error. Until I am just stubborn. The fact that some my find my views and analysis unorthodox doesn't concern me, unless they find an error in them--a factual or logical error.

I have been on edge since Trump was elected. And the next morning I, with my wife's 100% agreement, decided to become a gun owner and learn how to shoot the damn things, at least semi-competently. While I enjoy shooting and the mechanics of guns, and may well have enjoyed being a gunsmith, I still wish that decision hadn't been forced on me, by the practical need to recognize that Charlottesville could happen anywhere, including here, in NJ.

I don't pretend that guns' sole purpose isn't to kill. It is. Every one of my guns was designed and built for that purpose, and if I wasn't OK with that, I wouldn't own them. And, every single day, I hope with all my being I never have to use them for that.

Sig P320 RX 9mm
H-K VP9 9mm
Ruger 1771 .357/.38
Beretta Cx4 Storm 9mm
Kel-Tec Sub2k 9mm (Beretta mags)
Marlin JM1894 .357/.38
Windham Hunter, AR-10 .308
Chances are you will not need any of those firearms. I have about 85, most handguns, ARs, bullpups, and the like. I simply enjoy shooting, and shoot almost every weekend.

I don’t think we’re headed for revolution, but I do believe in protecting my family.

As for as your political comments, I’m not here to argue. I read liberal and conservative papers as well as both on news media. My opinions are based upon continual research. Note that I’m here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest