Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Debate about Gun Control
(06-20-2016, 04:11 PM)Bronco80 Wrote:
(06-18-2016, 05:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-17-2016, 01:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote: It seems to me that the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that they have NOT yet ruled on whether a ban on more powerful weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment.

ABUNDANTLY clear, except perhaps to some folks, including some on this forum.

Well, the Supreme Court just denied cert on a challenge to Connecticut's assault weapons ban.  Practically close enough to ruling that it's OK under the Second Amendment.  I'm guessing you'll probably take this to the CT thread!

Maybe; it's certainly clear that the gun issue is sharply-divided between the blue and red states, and the level of gun violence is just as sharply-divided between them.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
Eric The Green Wrote:It's quite true that people in blue states are healthier than people in red states.

Well then, in the event of a draft, blue state inhabitants go and red state inhabitants stay.  

Quote:That's because they are generally smarter about things anyway; their voting record proves it.

"Smarter" as per Eric's criteria.  Non sequiter.

Quote:IOW, the gun toters are fat. If the MIC is controlled by the liberal states, they win the civil war. Classic Xer loses.


That would be a case of prolonged adolescence.  Middle aged folks who think they can outdo some young buck who has been to boot camp are pretty much deluded, IMHO.  Now... Rags knows he's middle aged and confines gun usage only to squirrels and game fowl. Big Grin  12 gauges and .22's are pretty mickey mouse wrt any sort of military sort of thingie. Of course since they're mikey mouse, .gov needs to butt out of that stuff. Cool

And... so it's no surprise to Rags that the Orlando thing got botched by the FBI due to TMI.  I'm sure the NSA has all of Rag's stuff on their diski dumpies in Utah and this is why the NSA is stupid. I'm sure they have everything I have on teh interwebs on their diski dumpies. Further, and as everyone here knows, the precise stuff in my dossier is as follows:

1. Pr0n site visits and streamings from thereof.
2. Youtube streamings of assorted hard rock and heavy metal.
3. zerohedge.com
4. weather.gov
5. amazon.com - garden/snus/groceries.
6. Non USA news sources. Yeah, I don't trust useful idiots.
EOF

So you see, there is a serious needle in haystack problem here. It is for that reason, the FBI botched Orlando.
What do the spooks want now?  Less worthless data populating their diskie dumpies?  Fuck no, stupid is as stupid does, they want more worthless data like adding spy stuff to lamp posts.   I mean really, I have to use the Ruskie's news to find out useful stuff nowadays.

https://www.rt.com/news/big-brother-street-lamps-286/

The MSM = a bunch of worthless sycophants.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
(06-20-2016, 09:50 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-20-2016, 07:20 AM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-18-2016, 10:40 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-18-2016, 09:37 PM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-17-2016, 03:07 PM)taramarie Wrote: As usual you not listening. Taking lessons from Eric are we? p.s. I have not played video games in a very long time and i do not watch tv. Fossils do that. Some people i know are willing to die to protect their guns. Must be nice to be ignorant of that in your own country. I believe them because they are completely crazy over their guns and their right to own those guns. I know that the victors would also be republicans and anyone who wants to keep their guns.  I do not know of the movie purge....oh wait a min. Yes I do. I watched maybe a few mins of it and turned it off.  Boring and forgettable. Still laughing over the idea of watching traditional tv. Come join us in the 21st century sometime. Oh you don't like being laughed at and insulted? You throw your ball at me i throw it right back and i am way worse than you. Ask Eric aka his "scorpio" theory.

Way worse than me, ey?  And on an Internet forum, no less.  Pretty scary.  Rolleyes

You do realize that we agree that SOME of our ammosexuals will be stupid enough to take on some aspect of our various governments, probably a small county sheriff's office or a small police force.  You seem to see this as a big deal; I don't.

Now try to control yourself, no need to frighten anyone.

I can be pretty scary on internet and face to face. I am the exact same either way. I do not hold back punches. I am direct and to the point. So stick to the subject and act your age insect. You have a thing about mixing sex and guns....kind of a weird combo. I will control myself when you act your age. You get personal, so will I. Ask Eric. He knows my sting as he called it. Stick to the subject there will be no drams. Well, take away their guns and see how quickly it escalates. I will have popcorn ready. 2nd amendment is a pretty damn big deal to these people as well as freedom which are two things many like to harp about. We will start counting how many retaliate when it happens. I  think it will be significant. Keep eyes peeled IF guns are ever taken away and i doubt it will ever happen given the power of the NRA and paranoia....especially in the 4T. Culture....hard thing to change.

Yea, yea, yea,  guns will be taken away and the US will go up in flames because, well, you're a Kiwi, living on the other side of the world and you have absolute certainty of not only another country but the future.  Like I said, maybe cut back a tad on the TeeVee? 

And wow, calling me an "insect" on the Internet, you are one macho Kiwi.  Rolleyes

And this thing you got about Eric that you keep referring to.  Maybe you should ask if he wants to share a room?  You could  get dressed up in your Dominatrix sheepherder outfit you been dying to try out? 

Eric, you're probable not into the whips and chains, but for international relations, maybe give it a try?  Taramarie seems a tad frustrated and in need of a little release.  Besides -


[Image: sheepherder_zpsaectzfjk.jpg]

Ok maybe insect is not the word. CHILD is more like it. I see when one is loosing the argument one has to change topic. You are a grown up. Older than me in fact. Maye act your age?

And what argument is that?  That the US will go up in flames if assualt rifles are banned?  As I pointed out earlier, that seems to be the only difference of opinion that we have. 

This may be a difference in vision of the scale of the reaction.  Do you see entire cites becoming smoldering ruins where government forces fear to tread because of open civil war?  Myself, I see a few cases of militia groups taking over some remote bird sanctuaries (probable targeting those with gift shops) and maybe one or two Waco/Branch Davidian siege - all ending more or less the same way, including the perpretators getting really mad about all the personal lube and dildos they received -





Here's what I think you're missing: we are a nation of laws.  The 2nd Amendment is derived from that and it is meaningless without that context.  As a democratic nation of laws, not a monarchy, we have political, legal and administrative processes for forming, interpreting, modifying and enforcing those laws.  You don't see the millions more people that support gun restrictions rising up and burning cities down; the VAST majority of people expect the same from those that are pro-guns should further restrictions, including AR bans, become the law of the land.  And that vast majority includes not only gun owner but likely the majority of pretty fevered gun advocates.  Essentially, they're supposed rising up and taking arms against the government makes the 2nd Amendment moot.

What you are suggesting is that even through a democratic governing political and legal process gun restrictions would occur, we should not proceed with those measures because some gun nuts will take up arms against the government.  I believe that suggestion clearly indicates that you are vastly misinformed of American culture and history.

_____________________

And oh, someone should point out to our Oregon 'patriot' that he still has a bunch of dicks on the floor.
Reply
(06-20-2016, 11:16 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
Eric The Green Wrote:It's quite true that people in blue states are healthier than people in red states.

Well then, in the event of a draft, blue state inhabitants go and red state inhabitants stay.  

Quote:That's because they are generally smarter about things anyway; their voting record proves it.

"Smarter" as per Eric's criteria.  Non sequiter.

Quote:IOW, the gun toters are fat. If the MIC is controlled by the liberal states, they win the civil war. Classic Xer loses.


That would be a case of prolonged adolescence.  Middle aged folks who think they can outdo some young buck who has been to boot camp are pretty much deluded, IMHO.  Now... Rags knows he's middle aged and confines gun usage only to squirrels and game fowl. Big Grin  12 gauges and .22's are pretty mickey mouse wrt any sort of military sort of thingie. Of course since they're mikey mouse, .gov needs to butt out of that stuff. Cool

And... so it's no surprise to Rags that the Orlando thing got botched by the FBI due to TMI.  I'm sure the NSA has all of Rag's stuff on their diski dumpies in Utah and this is why the NSA is stupid. I'm sure they have everything I have on teh interwebs on their diski dumpies. Further, and as everyone here knows, the precise stuff in my dossier is as follows:

1. Pr0n site visits and streamings from thereof.
2. Youtube streamings of assorted hard rock and heavy metal.
3. zerohedge.com
4. weather.gov
5. amazon.com - garden/snus/groceries.
6. Non USA news sources. Yeah, I don't trust useful idiots.
EOF

So you see, there is a serious needle in haystack problem here. It is for that reason, the FBI botched Orlando.
What do the spooks want now?  Less worthless data populating their diskie dumpies?  Fuck no, stupid is as stupid does, they want more worthless data like adding spy stuff to lamp posts.   I mean really, I have to use the Ruskie's news to find out useful stuff nowadays.

https://www.rt.com/news/big-brother-street-lamps-286/

The MSM = a bunch of worthless sycophants.

Dude, you just posted Ho-Ho's on the Internet in a disparaging manner!

Of course Utah's got a bead on you.  And rightfully so; you are a Ho-Hos menance!!!

That ain't American!

You just need to ask yourself -

Is that humming the drone of a Predator circling? 

Confused
Reply
Senator Murphy has the correct framing for taking on the ammosexuals, NRA and their Congressional puppets -

Chris Murphy: ‘Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS’

Quote:“We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS,” Murphy said, using an alternative term for the Islamic State militant group. “That’s what they’ve decided to do. ISIS has decided that the assault weapon is the new airplane, and Republicans, in refusing to close the terror gap, refusing to pass bans on assault weapons, are allowing these weapons to get in the hands of potential lone-wolf attackers. We’ve got to make this connection and make it in very stark terms.”
The political ads coming out of the Senate votes yesterday are going to be brutal.
Reply
(06-21-2016, 10:12 AM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-20-2016, 09:50 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-20-2016, 07:20 AM)playwrite Wrote:
(06-18-2016, 10:40 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-18-2016, 09:37 PM)playwrite Wrote: Way worse than me, ey?  And on an Internet forum, no less.  Pretty scary.  Rolleyes

You do realize that we agree that SOME of our ammosexuals will be stupid enough to take on some aspect of our various governments, probably a small county sheriff's office or a small police force.  You seem to see this as a big deal; I don't.

Now try to control yourself, no need to frighten anyone.

I can be pretty scary on internet and face to face. I am the exact same either way. I do not hold back punches. I am direct and to the point. So stick to the subject and act your age insect. You have a thing about mixing sex and guns....kind of a weird combo. I will control myself when you act your age. You get personal, so will I. Ask Eric. He knows my sting as he called it. Stick to the subject there will be no drams. Well, take away their guns and see how quickly it escalates. I will have popcorn ready. 2nd amendment is a pretty damn big deal to these people as well as freedom which are two things many like to harp about. We will start counting how many retaliate when it happens. I  think it will be significant. Keep eyes peeled IF guns are ever taken away and i doubt it will ever happen given the power of the NRA and paranoia....especially in the 4T. Culture....hard thing to change.

Yea, yea, yea,  guns will be taken away and the US will go up in flames because, well, you're a Kiwi, living on the other side of the world and you have absolute certainty of not only another country but the future.  Like I said, maybe cut back a tad on the TeeVee? 

And wow, calling me an "insect" on the Internet, you are one macho Kiwi.  Rolleyes

And this thing you got about Eric that you keep referring to.  Maybe you should ask if he wants to share a room?  You could  get dressed up in your Dominatrix sheepherder outfit you been dying to try out? 

Eric, you're probable not into the whips and chains, but for international relations, maybe give it a try?  Taramarie seems a tad frustrated and in need of a little release.  Besides -


[Image: sheepherder_zpsaectzfjk.jpg]

Ok maybe insect is not the word. CHILD is more like it. I see when one is loosing the argument one has to change topic. You are a grown up. Older than me in fact. Maye act your age?

And what argument is that?  That the US will go up in flames if assualt rifles are banned?  As I pointed out earlier, that seems to be the only difference of opinion that we have. 

This may be a difference in vision of the scale of the reaction.  Do you see entire cites becoming smoldering ruins where government forces fear to tread because of open civil war?  Myself, I see a few cases of militia groups taking over some remote bird sanctuaries (probable targeting those with gift shops) and maybe one or two Waco/Branch Davidian siege - all ending more or less the same way, including the perpretators getting really mad about all the personal lube and dildos they received -





Here's what I think you're missing: we are a nation of laws.  The 2nd Amendment is derived from that and it is meaningless without that context.  As a democratic nation of laws, not a monarchy, we have political, legal and administrative processes for forming, interpreting, modifying and enforcing those laws.  You don't see the millions more people that support gun restrictions rising up and burning cities down; the VAST majority of people expect the same from those that are pro-guns should further restrictions, including AR bans, become the law of the land.  And that vast majority includes not only gun owner but likely the majority of pretty fevered gun advocates.  Essentially, they're supposed rising up and taking arms against the government makes the 2nd Amendment moot.

What you are suggesting is that even through a democratic governing political and legal process gun restrictions would occur, we should not proceed with those measures because some gun nuts will take up arms against the government.  I believe that suggestion clearly indicates that you are vastly misinformed of American culture and history.

_____________________

And oh, someone should point out to our Oregon 'patriot' that he still has a bunch of dicks on the floor.

That is because they have not been banned yet. I think we will just have to see what happens IF they are ever banned. Given that it is against your constitution rights I am sure they can't. Maybe some more regulation. But even that gets blood boiling. Face it, your country never be without them as it is part of your history and culture connected with freedom. Given that you are wanting the government to take away some current freedom Americans enjoy (constitution rights and all that jazz), (not unlike when the right wants to ban abortions and equal marriage) I would say you would get a mass movement against it. But carry on and we shall just see who is right and who is not. Big Grin
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
(06-17-2016, 05:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.
Playwrite is exactly right; that's what I predict too. It may last longer than one Waco, but that's basically what will happen. Defeating the progressive Democrats will not be so easy if they have the support of the people. They will, in that case, have the law and the army on their side. I don't know what any of this has to do with how close soldiers are to their families. What relevance is that? All people are close to their families. Progressive Democrats just want a fair society with a strong middle class. Conservative Republicans want an unjust society owned and operated for the benefit of the 1%. So once the spell of the trickle-down and self-reliance slogans is fully broken, there's no doubt which side the people will be on. And there's little doubt about which side the young people of the 4T (as opposed to those of the 3T) are taking.
 A party whose support is largely based on government support would be easy to defeat. Like I said, progressive Democrats have far more to loose than gain. Me, I'd just cash out and stop paying taxes. What's fair? Is it fair to pay people who are less productive who have less capabilities higher sums of money? Is it fair to pay more productive people with more capabilities higher sums of money?
Reply
(06-21-2016, 08:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-17-2016, 05:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.
Playwrite is exactly right; that's what I predict too. It may last longer than one Waco, but that's basically what will happen. Defeating the progressive Democrats will not be so easy if they have the support of the people. They will, in that case, have the law and the army on their side. I don't know what any of this has to do with how close soldiers are to their families. What relevance is that? All people are close to their families. Progressive Democrats just want a fair society with a strong middle class. Conservative Republicans want an unjust society owned and operated for the benefit of the 1%. So once the spell of the trickle-down and self-reliance slogans is fully broken, there's no doubt which side the people will be on. And there's little doubt about which side the young people of the 4T (as opposed to those of the 3T) are taking.
 A party whose support is largely based on government support would be easy to defeat. Like I said, progressive Democrats have far more to loose than gain. Me, I'd just cash out and stop paying taxes. What's fair? Is it fair to pay people who are less productive who have less capabilities higher sums of money? Is it fair to pay more productive people with more capabilities higher sums of money?

We will defeat your mindless slogans about "a party whose support is largely based on government support." You can see how far that slogan went with how Romney fared with it. You lost. You will keep losing (not loosing; learn to spell, right-winger). Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton will win, and you will lose. As far as you not paying taxes, go ahead; make my day. Good luck with the IRS. You gun nuts and free market dog whistlers are going to lose. It may take a while. But we will keep pressing for economic equality and opportunity by clamping down on guys like you who prey on workers and don't pay taxes. Your Donald will lose, big time. He will discredit you, since you guys are all the same. The non-productive extortionists whom you support will have their wealth expropriated and given back to the people from whom they stole it. You will lose. And if you guys start a war to fight back against your inevitable defeat, we will crush you. We will grind you into dust, put you in jail and blow you away.

Sorry for picking on you; I am so mad at Amerika tonight that I had to attack the nearest target Smile
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(06-21-2016, 11:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-21-2016, 08:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-17-2016, 05:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.
Playwrite is exactly right; that's what I predict too. It may last longer than one Waco, but that's basically what will happen. Defeating the progressive Democrats will not be so easy if they have the support of the people. They will, in that case, have the law and the army on their side. I don't know what any of this has to do with how close soldiers are to their families. What relevance is that? All people are close to their families. Progressive Democrats just want a fair society with a strong middle class. Conservative Republicans want an unjust society owned and operated for the benefit of the 1%. So once the spell of the trickle-down and self-reliance slogans is fully broken, there's no doubt which side the people will be on. And there's little doubt about which side the young people of the 4T (as opposed to those of the 3T) are taking.
 A party whose support is largely based on government support would be easy to defeat. Like I said, progressive Democrats have far more to loose than gain. Me, I'd just cash out and stop paying taxes. What's fair? Is it fair to pay people who are less productive who have less capabilities higher sums of money? Is it fair to pay more productive people with more capabilities higher sums of money?

We will defeat your mindless slogans about "a party whose support is largely based on government support." You can see how far that slogan went with how Romney fared with it. You lost. You will keep losing (not loosing; learn to spell, right-winger). Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton will win, and you will lose. As far as you not paying taxes, go ahead; make my day. Good luck with the IRS. You gun nuts and free market dog whistlers are going to lose. It may take a while. But we will keep pressing for economic equality and opportunity by clamping down on guys like you who prey on workers and don't pay taxes. Your Donald will lose, big time. He will discredit you, since you guys are all the same. The non-productive extortionists whom you support will have their wealth expropriated and given back to the people from whom they stole it. You will lose. And if you guys start a war to fight back against your inevitable defeat, we will crush you. We will grind you into dust, put you in jail and blow you away.

You will just have to see about who wins when they do. I would not go making predictions on who wins. You can only guess. I would be worried if I were you....for either one that wins.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
(06-21-2016, 10:35 AM)playwrite Wrote: Senator Murphy has the correct framing for taking on the ammosexuals, NRA and their Congressional puppets -

Chris Murphy: ‘Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS’

Quote:“We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS,” Murphy said, using an alternative term for the Islamic State militant group. “That’s what they’ve decided to do. ISIS has decided that the assault weapon is the new airplane, and Republicans, in refusing to close the terror gap, refusing to pass bans on assault weapons, are allowing these weapons to get in the hands of potential lone-wolf attackers. We’ve got to make this connection and make it in very stark terms.”
The political ads coming out of the Senate votes yesterday are going to be brutal.

Good; the more brutal the better.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(06-22-2016, 01:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 12:09 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-21-2016, 11:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-21-2016, 08:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-17-2016, 05:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Playwrite is exactly right; that's what I predict too. It may last longer than one Waco, but that's basically what will happen. Defeating the progressive Democrats will not be so easy if they have the support of the people. They will, in that case, have the law and the army on their side. I don't know what any of this has to do with how close soldiers are to their families. What relevance is that? All people are close to their families. Progressive Democrats just want a fair society with a strong middle class. Conservative Republicans want an unjust society owned and operated for the benefit of the 1%. So once the spell of the trickle-down and self-reliance slogans is fully broken, there's no doubt which side the people will be on. And there's little doubt about which side the young people of the 4T (as opposed to those of the 3T) are taking.
 A party whose support is largely based on government support would be easy to defeat. Like I said, progressive Democrats have far more to loose than gain. Me, I'd just cash out and stop paying taxes. What's fair? Is it fair to pay people who are less productive who have less capabilities higher sums of money? Is it fair to pay more productive people with more capabilities higher sums of money?

We will defeat your mindless slogans about "a party whose support is largely based on government support." You can see how far that slogan went with how Romney fared with it. You lost. You will keep losing (not loosing; learn to spell, right-winger). Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton will win, and you will lose. As far as you not paying taxes, go ahead; make my day. Good luck with the IRS. You gun nuts and free market dog whistlers are going to lose. It may take a while. But we will keep pressing for economic equality and opportunity by clamping down on guys like you who prey on workers and don't pay taxes. Your Donald will lose, big time. He will discredit you, since you guys are all the same. The non-productive extortionists whom you support will have their wealth expropriated and given back to the people from whom they stole it. You will lose. And if you guys start a war to fight back against your inevitable defeat, we will crush you. We will grind you into dust, put you in jail and blow you away.

You will just have to see about who wins when they do. I would not go making predictions on who wins. You can only guess. I would be worried if I were you....for either one that wins.

You know that I am a prophet, and that I know what's going to happen. No, it's only one side I am worried about.

Well i hope Elizabeth has some influence over Clinton. Fingers crossed for that. Yes I know you are a prophet but we will just have to see if it is correct.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
(06-21-2016, 11:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-21-2016, 08:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(06-17-2016, 05:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-16-2016, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.
Playwrite is exactly right; that's what I predict too. It may last longer than one Waco, but that's basically what will happen. Defeating the progressive Democrats will not be so easy if they have the support of the people. They will, in that case, have the law and the army on their side. I don't know what any of this has to do with how close soldiers are to their families. What relevance is that? All people are close to their families. Progressive Democrats just want a fair society with a strong middle class. Conservative Republicans want an unjust society owned and operated for the benefit of the 1%. So once the spell of the trickle-down and self-reliance slogans is fully broken, there's no doubt which side the people will be on. And there's little doubt about which side the young people of the 4T (as opposed to those of the 3T) are taking.
 A party whose support is largely based on government support would be easy to defeat. Like I said, progressive Democrats have far more to loose than gain. Me, I'd just cash out and stop paying taxes. What's fair? Is it fair to pay people who are less productive who have less capabilities higher sums of money? Is it fair to pay more productive people with more capabilities higher sums of money?

We will defeat your mindless slogans about "a party whose support is largely based on government support." You can see how far that slogan went with how Romney fared with it. You lost. You will keep losing (not loosing; learn to spell, right-winger). Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton will win, and you will lose. As far as you not paying taxes, go ahead; make my day. Good luck with the IRS. You gun nuts and free market dog whistlers are going to lose. It may take a while. But we will keep pressing for economic equality and opportunity by clamping down on guys like you who prey on workers and don't pay taxes. Your Donald will lose, big time. He will discredit you, since you guys are all the same. The non-productive extortionists whom you support will have their wealth expropriated and given back to the people from whom they stole it. You will lose. And if you guys start a war to fight back against your inevitable defeat, we will crush you. We will grind you into dust, put you in jail and blow you away.

Sorry for picking on you; I am so mad at Amerika tonight that I had to attack the nearest target Smile
Every time the liberals win, they dig themselves into a deeper hole. So, keep on wining baby.
Reply
[quote='Classic-Xer' pid='3570' dateline='1466614502']

Quote:Every time the liberals win, they dig themselves into a deeper hole. So, keep on wining baby.

We will; we will keep stuffing you into the hole, baby! Then, the rest of us can breathe again.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(06-22-2016, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 02:35 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 12:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 12:22 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Seeeeeee.... That's the reason to prefer the 3T.
No no as I try to keep reminding you, and certain others here; the personal does not equal the real.

Quote:That's your decision. All of us here know that already. My preference of my economic circumstances is just one part of my preference of the 3T vs. 4T.  Of course all of the board here also know that I like a lot of 3T music because it reflects my edgy side. It also confirmed the joy of economic freedom I had and party hearty I did back then.  
Lots of creeps had the economic freedom to screw others over and create the Great Recession we live in. No, the personal does not equal the real.

Quote:No argument there wrt to him able to party hearty.  If I were on his party plane, I'd wait until he's all good and stoned and switch the music over to some awesome 3T stuff. Easy task, when yer stoned, you really don't care about much.  I know. Big Grin

But what was great about drugs and parties were the acid kool aid tests. They were gateways to a spiritual life beyond drugs. In those cases, you do care about the music; it must get you high, not crash you in the trash can.

Quote:The generational alignment will change and there will be a 1T of some sort. It could either be a 1950's Happy Days one or a Neo Gilded Age.  Either way, Xer's are badass and don't give a shit. We'll be getting old and riding off to the sunset together.

Before we can ride off into the sunset, there must be a victory. Otherwise, the old south after the civil war applies. No sunset; just wallowing in darkness and tyranny.

Quote:Thank You Very Much.

OK, TYVM.

No one gives a shit about the "real" music which is just your preference. Anyone could choose an era and say that is real music. Because you experienced the 2T when you were a young adult that is what you choose over 3T which would have been a smack over the head for you. You have said over and over again that you hate 3T music. WE KNOW. Nothing is going to change 3T music THANKFULLY and it cannot please everyone. Just enjoy your JB music and leave us to enjoy what we enjoy without you slewing insults about it over and over. We love 3T music and no one gives a shit what you consider good music and what you do not. Reason being all you have are insults for what we like. The frigging arrogance. You would not appreciate people insulting what you enjoy so be respectful of other preferences.

Oh ha ha. You are so predictable. Just more nonsense to ignore. Duh....
Of course because ignoring the truth is much easier for you than facing it. Check out my other post on your thread. You mention generations coming together. Seems you want OTHERS to do that but not you.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
(06-22-2016, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 02:35 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 12:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-22-2016, 12:22 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Seeeeeee.... That's the reason to prefer the 3T.
No no as I try to keep reminding you, and certain others here; the personal does not equal the real.

Quote:That's your decision. All of us here know that already. My preference of my economic circumstances is just one part of my preference of the 3T vs. 4T.  Of course all of the board here also know that I like a lot of 3T music because it reflects my edgy side. It also confirmed the joy of economic freedom I had and party hearty I did back then.  
Lots of creeps had the economic freedom to screw others over and create the Great Recession we live in. No, the personal does not equal the real.

Quote:No argument there wrt to him able to party hearty.  If I were on his party plane, I'd wait until he's all good and stoned and switch the music over to some awesome 3T stuff. Easy task, when yer stoned, you really don't care about much.  I know. Big Grin

But what was great about drugs and parties were the acid kool aid tests. They were gateways to a spiritual life beyond drugs. In those cases, you do care about the music; it must get you high, not crash you in the trash can.

Quote:The generational alignment will change and there will be a 1T of some sort. It could either be a 1950's Happy Days one or a Neo Gilded Age.  Either way, Xer's are badass and don't give a shit. We'll be getting old and riding off to the sunset together.

Before we can ride off into the sunset, there must be a victory. Otherwise, the old south after the civil war applies. No sunset; just wallowing in darkness and tyranny.

Quote:Thank You Very Much.

OK, TYVM.

No one gives a shit about the "real" music which is just your preference. Anyone could choose an era and say that is real music. Because you experienced the 2T when you were a young adult that is what you choose over 3T which would have been a smack over the head for you. You have said over and over again that you hate 3T music. WE KNOW. Nothing is going to change 3T music THANKFULLY and it cannot please everyone. Just enjoy your JB music and leave us to enjoy what we enjoy without you slewing insults about it over and over. We love 3T music and no one gives a shit what you consider good music and what you do not. Reason being all you have are insults for what we like. The frigging arrogance. You would not appreciate people insulting what you enjoy so be respectful of other preferences.

Oh ha ha. You are so predictable. Just more nonsense to ignore. Duh.... how about not inserting your insults and just let Rags and I talk about it? You don't get what I say, so why don't you just f-f-fade away?

I will stop the insults when you show a little respect for differences. That is what you are all about right? You are disrespectful about the 3T. Constantly. You have no trouble calling it shit. As people here enjoy it it is a personal attack. Want the personal attacks to go away SHOW SOME RESPECT. No one expects you to like that music but live and let live ERIC.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
(06-20-2016, 09:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(06-17-2016, 01:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote: It seems to me that the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that they have NOT yet ruled on whether a ban on more powerful weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment.

Not in a recent case.  They were clear that military weapons are protected in US v Miller back in the 1930s, but that case also contained elements of the Collective Rights interpretation.  That case is old enough and elements of it have been put in question by recent cases that it is worthy of review by a modern court.  I'd spurn the modern courts as political, as stretching the reading of the text and intent of the authors, but US v Miller was no less political.

2008 is not recent?  I was refering to this portion of Heller.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

For example, based on that statement above I would say the 2nd Amendment does not necessarily given one the right to own a nuke (Justin 77 argued that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to bear any military weapon, even a nuke).  Not all law-abiding people will continue on to the future to be law-abiding.  People can (and do) go beserk.  When they do so with a revolver they may kill a dozens, with a nuke it could be tens of thousands.  All I was saying is there must be some line between owning a handgun (Heller) or shotgun (Miller) that is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and a personal nuke, which I should hope is not.
Reply
I split off the debate about music/pop culture

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-211.html
Reply
From John Lewis:

Eric, I’ve had enough.

Enough of my Republican colleagues’ inaction.

Enough of the empty thoughts and moments of silence.

Enough of the daily toll of gun violence in this country.

It is time that Congress do what is just, what is right, and what is long overdue.

But House Republicans won’t consider any action on gun safety.

That’s why I, and many House Democrats in Congress, began a sit-in on the House floor just hours ago.

Join us in fighting for common-sense gun safety.

How many more people need to shed tears of grief, before we do something?

Republicans cannot continue to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the plague of gun violence in our country.

The American people are demanding action and we have the obligation to do what we can to reduce gun violence in our great nation.

The time for silence is over.

Stand with us: Add your name now.

Thank you,

John Lewis
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(06-22-2016, 07:00 PM)Mikebert Wrote: 2008 is not recent?  I was refering to this portion of Heller.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

For example, based on that statement above I would say the 2nd Amendment does not necessarily given one the right to own a nuke (Justin 77 argued that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to bear any military weapon, even a nuke).  Not all law-abiding people will continue on to the future to be law-abiding.  People can (and do) go beserk.  When they do so with a revolver they may kill a dozens, with a nuke it could be tens of thousands.  All I was saying is there must be some line between owning a handgun (Heller) or shotgun (Miller) that is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and a personal nuke, which I should hope is not.

The hoped for line is whether the weapon is crew served or not.  In revolutionary times, individuals owned and carried muskets, but the cannon were owned by the community.  This is considered a decent pretext for drawing a line.  If a weapon is crew served, there is no protection.

Legally and in many cases practically it's a decent line.  Alas, it doesn't cover suitcase nukes.  Also, as computers and precision guidance makes more and more dangerous weapons single soldier light weight single operator ready to use, what might be a fine litmus test today could become an ugly precedent not too many decades down the road.

Miller's litmus test is thus important.  Is the weapon carried by common infantrymen?  If so, it is protected by the 2nd.  In the 1930s, sawed off shotguns and assault rifles (specifically the Thompson submachine gun) were not used by the military.  They were gangster weapons, not military weapons.  Thus they were banned.  Alas, by World War II the Thompson was commonly used by the military.  In Vietnam, soldiers clearing out tunnel complexes were using sawed off shotguns.  By the Miller litmus test, that flipped these weapons from subject to ban to protected.

That's what  you have to watch about Miller.  The litmus test is not that the weapon is too deadly.  It is that the weapon has no military use, has nothing to do with the maintenance of a well regulated militia.  Thus, under the Collective Rights / Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd, the government could restrict possession of the weapon.  While modern gun prohibition advocates misquote Miller as saying it establishes that specific weapons can be banned, they don't quote to criteria established that determines which weapons can be banned.  

Gun rights advocates also quote Miller, but with an entirely different spin.  From their point of view, Miller establishes that common infantry weapons are specifically protected.  Today, that means assault rifles.  This is clearly not what the gun prohibitions favor.  If the question weren't values locked to death I might favor rewriting the 2nd such that a true right to own and carry weapons for self defense clearly and plainly exists, but limitations on things like rate of fire and magazine size are allowed.  Alas, reasonable compromise doesn't seem to be on the table.

You really can't trust the main stream media's spin on the case.  Reading the actual Miller decision is recommended.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply
Leaving legal issues aside for one post at least, and commenting on the politics of the current Democratic "sit in" in Congress.

I see the Republican refusal to allow a vote as reflecting their losing their base to Tea Party and Trump like extremists who cling harder to the unravelling Reagan ideas than the establishment Republicans do.  If they don't hold firm without compromise the unravelling world view, their base will dump them on their respective rears.  They have little choice but to play to the extreme on core issues like gun prohibition.

The Democrats are, of course, putting a spot light on this.  In recent times, the Republicans have been very free in using procedural obstructions.  It doesn't take a majority to pass a bill.  You need the supermajority to get it out of committee or call a vote on the floor.  They arguably have been using such obstructionist tactics to try to make Obama a failure.  This hasn't worked cleanly.  They have got a reputation for obstruction, well deserved.

Unfortunately, from the perspective of a good size portion of their base, they aren't obstructing enough.  Obstruction has become such a central part of how Republicans operate that their base will rise in rejection of they don't do it ever so much, more so.

And the Democrats are calling them on it.  Bringing Congress to a dead halt to force through a partisan issue has recently been a Republican tactic.  This time the Democrats are playing at it.  The difference, I suspect, is that the Republicans have to stick by their principles in face of revolt if they don't.  Feels like to me that the Democrats don't have to be doing it, but they think doing it will put them in a stronger position come the Fall voting.

Personally, I don't care for filibuster grandstanding.  Congress is getting little enough done without bringing everything to a halt for an attempted public relations effect.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Biden to announce gun control executive orders, added background checks vni 19 150 04-11-2021, 05:56 PM
Last Post: chairb
  House passes bill to expand background checks for gun sales HealthyDebate 0 76 03-11-2021, 09:03 PM
Last Post: HealthyDebate
  House of Delegates Passes Sweeping Gun-Control Bill stillretired 6 124 03-10-2021, 01:43 AM
Last Post: Kate1999
  U.S. House set to vote on bills to expand gun background checks Adar 0 54 03-08-2021, 07:37 AM
Last Post: Adar
  Gun control first for Biden executive orders random3 12 330 02-09-2021, 07:01 PM
Last Post: random3
  Senator pushes for gun rental background checks random3 11 335 02-08-2021, 07:32 PM
Last Post: random3
  Rep. Dan Crenshaw irks both the left and right with gun comments random3 0 80 02-05-2021, 04:03 AM
Last Post: random3
  Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure nebraska 1,204 220,191 06-06-2020, 06:13 PM
Last Post: Tavo5
  debate TheNomad 9 963 03-17-2020, 03:56 AM
Last Post: Bob Butler 54
  Hawaii bill would allow gun seizure after hospitalization nebraska 17 4,168 05-05-2019, 10:05 AM
Last Post: misswali

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)