Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-03-2018, 11:28 PM)skier Wrote: When our overlords make a decree, they always sell it as a minor temporary law that only affects Muslims, junkies, sex offenders, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, or blacks. The 1% doesn't mention that the law will become permanent and more draconian.
No one cares if owning cows are illegal, yoga pants are illegal, teen driving is illegal, or smoking is illegal. The problem is what happens when your job is banned, the government steals your house, tortures your family, or sends you to the concentration camps.
Are you just going to take it?
Dude, you got to get off the 1% thingy (a well known liberal meme). Half of the 1% wanted Jeb Bush. The other half of the 1% wanted Hilary Clinton and the 40 some % wanted Trump.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(03-03-2018, 11:28 PM)skier Wrote: When our overlords make a decree, they always sell it as a minor temporary law that only affects Muslims, junkies, sex offenders, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, or blacks. The 1% doesn't mention that the law will become permanent and more draconian.
You can rest assured that any gun-control legislation will be so written as to include non-discrimination clauses for ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. That is not to say that I fully trust the 1% with my human rights, vote, or right to political participation. Industrialists, financiers, big landowners, and corporate bureaucrats have typically been the big financial backers of fascist causes and politicians; they of course want a cheap, submissive, cowed, obedient work force for which one suffers adequately without complaint or learns how horrible things can be in a labor camp in which one is treated worse than a plantation slave (if only because slaves were valuable assets on a plantation). I have no more faith in America's economic elite than one had justification to expect the best of the German economic elite around 1930. Nazi Germany was a plutocrat's paradise (so long as one wasn't Jewish) and a worker's Hell.
Quote:No one cares if owning cows are illegal, yoga pants are illegal, teen driving is illegal, or smoking is illegal. The problem is what happens when your job is banned, the government steals your house, tortures your family, or sends you to the concentration camps.
Are you just going to take it?
We must all be prepared to abort any fascistic tendency in the USA as a whole and in any State of the Union. If you think that gun rights are essential to the stopping of fascism, then remember that Nazi Germany was awash in privately-held firearms, as it was the duty of every 'good, patriotic, active' Nazi to have as many as possible. It is possible to have an arch-conservative government, like the UK under the late Margaret Thatcher, in which firearms are practically outlawed.
Liberals, moderates, and conservatives alike need to resist the dictatorial and despotic tendencies of our current President if they are to make America the sort of place that is good for most people.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
03-04-2018, 12:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2018, 05:43 PM by David Horn.)
(03-03-2018, 06:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Are we looking at a fully automatic rifle or a semi automatic rifle? Because that is the REAL difference between a so-called weapon of war and an AR-15. You keep slamming me about this or that and over this or that and I keep reminding you and every other ARROGANT BLUE that you guys don't know shit about me. I JUST MIGHT BE ABLE TO SURPRISE/SHOCK YOU. Do you like California? Does California look like a nice place for blues to live? I could live without California. I could live without blues and all the trouble that they seem to start or create for the rest of society.
I've used the M-16, which is the fully automatic version of this weapon. The typical use in war is either single fire or short bursts (2 or 3 rounds). Since single fire is a typical military mode, and the weapon in question is the semi-automatic-only version of a standard issue military weapon, why is this not a military weapon?
And you're right that none of us really know one another. You live in a blue/purple state, so you are not like a typical red state resident. California, with a little of everything, looks like a nation rather than a state. There are parts that would suit you much better than me.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(03-04-2018, 12:58 PM)David Horn Wrote: And you're right that none of us really know one another.
All too true. I know people on the forums who are classically red or blue who use a different argument than the usual norm. Typically those who participate in a forum are more intelligent than most, and/or more dedicated. That doesn't mean the usual argument is not the correct perspective, the more typical, or that the typical argument need not be rebutted.
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.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
03-04-2018, 03:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2018, 08:03 PM by pbrower2a.)
I admit to an inability to recognize the merits of the populist Right, the ones who see creativity and book-learning as oppression. I can recognize the merits of the old conservatism, the sort that recognized that people needed to find something worthy of protecting so that the common man would have more to lose than his chains in the event of a revolution in the name of the proletariat.
Those conservatives did not disparage education and insisted upon sound process.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-03-2018, 09:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: David Horn Wrote:You're confusing the right of a company to sell to whom they wish with legal authority, which they do not have. If they are discriminating against a group with legal status, then they are truly barred from doing what they are doing ... but they aren't. Being underage is a legal status issue, as you noted, but NOT being underage is not a protected category like gender and race. You can try to make it one, but right now it's not.
No. I'm saying Dick's doesn't have a legal right or the legal authority to change a state or federal law. Do you agree with me or not? I'm saying an 18-20 year old citizen of the USA are legal adults with legal status who are of legal age who have a legal right to purchase a rifle within Minnesota and The United States of America according to the law of the state and the federal government. Is age another one of those protected categories commonly associated with discrimination? I think so.
No one has the right to tell a company they must sell firearms to anyone. They also have no prohibition on deciding who is or is not eligible to buy -- unless the buyer is denied because he or she is in a protected class. 18-21 is not a protected class. If you have a lawyer, feel free to ask. I know the answer.
C-Xer Wrote:I know what I would do as Republican, I'd let it linger and grow and allow it to turn Dick's parking lots into political battle grounds over gun rights. If Cabelas is listening and wants Dick's disgruntled customer's or employees, I have a marketing slogan for you and others to use. "We Ain't Dick's"
I think you miss the point of the exercise. Dick's management decided that the number of future gun owners is small in the youth demographic, but they do buy other athletic equipment. More to the point, that demographic is trending anti-gun, so doing the same is good business. Cabela's can have the residual business.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-04-2018, 05:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-03-2018, 09:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: David Horn Wrote:You're confusing the right of a company to sell to whom they wish with legal authority, which they do not have. If they are discriminating against a group with legal status, then they are truly barred from doing what they are doing ... but they aren't. Being underage is a legal status issue, as you noted, but NOT being underage is not a protected category like gender and race. You can try to make it one, but right now it's not.
No. I'm saying Dick's doesn't have a legal right or the legal authority to change a state or federal law. Do you agree with me or not? I'm saying an 18-20 year old citizen of the USA are legal adults with legal status who are of legal age who have a legal right to purchase a rifle within Minnesota and The United States of America according to the law of the state and the federal government. Is age another one of those protected categories commonly associated with discrimination? I think so.
No one has the right to tell a company they must sell firearms to anyone. They also have no prohibition on deciding who is or is not eligible to buy -- unless the buyer is denied because he or she is in a protected class. 18-21 is not a protected class. If you have a lawyer, feel free to ask. I know the answer.
C-Xer Wrote:I know what I would do as Republican, I'd let it linger and grow and allow it to turn Dick's parking lots into political battle grounds over gun rights. If Cabelas is listening and wants Dick's disgruntled customer's or employees, I have a marketing slogan for you and others to use. "We Ain't Dick's"
I think you miss the point of the exercise. Dick's management decided that the number of future gun owners is small in the youth demographic, but they do buy other athletic equipment. More to the point, that demographic is trending anti-gun, so doing the same is good business. Cabela's can have the residual business.
You don't see an issue/problem with a LEGAL age group of LEGAL status, who are LEGAL to LEGALLY purchase a LEGAL product (firearm, alcohol, cigarettes or any other products available for sale to public in their store) being refused and denied of the right of doing so? THE LAW OR THEMSELVES. IT OBVIOUSLY WASN'T THE LAW.
Who gave them that right (a group of arrogant blue idiots view themselves as being above the law who are used being held unaccountable or a group self righteous blues who view themselves as morally superior to everyone else or a group foolish blues who make their business decisions based feelings or popularity instead of business knowledge and common sense) to do what they did in AMERICA?
ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE RUSSIANS (AN OLD RUSSIAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLD SOVIET UNION IN YOUR CASE OR REMNANT FROM THE COLD WAR IN YOUR CASE) that I'm still hearing about in the news? If so, that would explain why you are so off as far as your understanding and knowledge of AMERICA AND AMERICANS. Now, if its a matter of reasoning and serious lack of reasoning for whatever reason, that would explain it too. My values are clear and rather steady and widely held and recognized. My values aren't confusing and do not contradict and run into conflict and sparsely held and unrecognizable.
If the banks don't kill them by shutting down or severely limiting their credit lines, the class action lawsuits and major lawsuits and the federal and state fines associated with breaking the law and the business disruptions that scare off/turn off customers and costumer losses and the sell off of stock by shareholders are going to severely cripple and most likely kill them from losses of operating capital and cash flow. Bye Bye Dick's Sporting Goods.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(03-04-2018, 09:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-04-2018, 05:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-03-2018, 09:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: David Horn Wrote:You're confusing the right of a company to sell to whom they wish with legal authority, which they do not have. If they are discriminating against a group with legal status, then they are truly barred from doing what they are doing ... but they aren't. Being underage is a legal status issue, as you noted, but NOT being underage is not a protected category like gender and race. You can try to make it one, but right now it's not.
No. I'm saying Dick's doesn't have a legal right or the legal authority to change a state or federal law. Do you agree with me or not? I'm saying an 18-20 year old citizen of the USA are legal adults with legal status who are of legal age who have a legal right to purchase a rifle within Minnesota and The United States of America according to the law of the state and the federal government. Is age another one of those protected categories commonly associated with discrimination? I think so.
No one has the right to tell a company they must sell firearms to anyone. They also have no prohibition on deciding who is or is not eligible to buy -- unless the buyer is denied because he or she is in a protected class. 18-21 is not a protected class. If you have a lawyer, feel free to ask. I know the answer.
C-Xer Wrote:I know what I would do as Republican, I'd let it linger and grow and allow it to turn Dick's parking lots into political battle grounds over gun rights. If Cabelas is listening and wants Dick's disgruntled customer's or employees, I have a marketing slogan for you and others to use. "We Ain't Dick's"
I think you miss the point of the exercise. Dick's management decided that the number of future gun owners is small in the youth demographic, but they do buy other athletic equipment. More to the point, that demographic is trending anti-gun, so doing the same is good business. Cabela's can have the residual business.
You don't see an issue/problem with a LEGAL age group of LEGAL status, who are LEGAL to LEGALLY purchase a LEGAL product (firearm, alcohol, cigarettes or any other products available for sale to public in their store) being refused and denied of the right of doing so? THE LAW OR THEMSELVES. IT OBVIOUSLY WASN'T THE LAW.
Who gave them that right (a group of arrogant blue idiots view themselves as being above the law who are used being held unaccountable or a group self righteous blues who view themselves as morally superior to everyone else or a group foolish blues who make their business decisions based feelings or popularity instead of business knowledge and common sense) to do what they did in AMERICA?
ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE RUSSIANS (AN OLD RUSSIAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLD SOVIET UNION IN YOUR CASE OR REMNANT FROM THE COLD WAR IN YOUR CASE) that I'm still hearing about in the news? If so, that would explain why you are so off as far as your understanding and knowledge of AMERICA AND AMERICANS. Now, if its a matter of reasoning and serious lack of reasoning for whatever reason, that would explain it too. My values are clear and rather steady and widely held and recognized. My values aren't confusing and do not contradict and run into conflict and sparsely held and unrecognizable.
If the banks don't kill them by shutting down or severely limiting their credit lines, the class action lawsuits and major lawsuits and the federal and state fines associated with breaking the law and the business disruptions that scare off/turn off customers and costumer losses and the sell off of stock by shareholders are going to severely cripple and most likely kill them from losses of operating capital and cash flow. Bye Bye Dick's Sporting Goods.
The Soviet Union has not been in existence for 27 years now, and it hasn't been an 'Evil Empire' since Gorbachev acceded to power. The only threat of Soviet military expansion would have been created by the victim, such as by terrorist acts against the USSR.
I might prefer that retailers were still selling classical compact disks, but the economic realities do not support this. It is no longer a profit for a merchant of audio and video. I must rely instead upon what I already have or resort to internet transactions. It may be a pity, but that is something to which I must adjust.
All states have a legal minimum age of 21 for the sale and consumption of into0xicating liquors even if the legal age for voting is 18. Youth between the ages of 18 and 21 were troublesome customers of alcoholic beverages because they
were more likely to drive drunk than older drivers and because 18-year-old boys were using alcohol to loosen the inhibitions of girls under 18 to have sex and get pregnant and contract STDs for which they were unready. But as it is, intoxicating liquors are heavily regulated. 18-year-olds have been getting firearms for younger gang members.
Guns? I can think of people to whom I do not want guns sold. People too stupid to merit execution (that is an IQ of 70 or less) probably should be denied firearms. Likewise anyone adjudicated insane. If one has diminished capacity for purposes of criminal sentencing, then one should not have a firearm. Persons who have committed a crime (and making a terrorist threat as did Nikolas Cruz) should not get firearms. Addicts and habitual drunks? Likewise. Me? Sure. A little over a year and a half ago I left hints that I was contemplating suicide as everything went wrong in my life.
I see Dick's Sporting Goods making a decision that capitalist firms do frequently, cutting a line of merchandise because that merchandise either
(1) is no longer profitable to sell
(2) it does not handle well, or
(3) the product line creates risks of huge losses due to liability lawsuits.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-04-2018, 12:58 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-03-2018, 06:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Are we looking at a fully automatic rifle or a semi automatic rifle? Because that is the REAL difference between a so-called weapon of war and an AR-15. You keep slamming me about this or that and over this or that and I keep reminding you and every other ARROGANT BLUE that you guys don't know shit about me. I JUST MIGHT BE ABLE TO SURPRISE/SHOCK YOU. Do you like California? Does California look like a nice place for blues to live? I could live without California. I could live without blues and all the trouble that they seem to start or create for the rest of society.
I've used the M-16, which is the fully automatic version of this weapon. The typical use in war is either single fire or short bursts (2 or 3 rounds). Since single fire is a typical military mode, and the weapon in question is the semi-automatic-only version of a standard issue military weapon, why is this not a military weapon?
And you're right that none of us really know one another. You live in a blue/purple state, so you are not like a typical red state resident. California, with a little of everything, looks like a nation rather than a state. There are parts that would suit you much better than me.
It looks like what you used in Vietnam but it isn't like what you used in Vietnam. You know that's true and I know that's true. What's the point of trying to convince me otherwise when both know the truth. I own a Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle. A model that was used in Vietnam and still in service today. My buddy carried/ used one during the 1st Iraq war. I've used an AR-15. I had to pull the trigger to fire a round. I had to pull the trigger multiple times to fire multiple rounds. If I held the trigger after firing a round, no more rounds were fired. You're making a silly argument that isn't going anyplace with me as far as legality gun.
It's a scary looking weapon, I'll give you that one. It's a dangerous weapon, I'll give you that one too. It' a weapon that can harm a lot of people in a short amount of time when in the wrong hands or the hands of the wrong people, I will give you that one too. It's a weapon that can fire more rounds than the average firearm is able to, I'll give you that one too. I'm reasonable, I'm rational and I'm not stupid. However, my view of it is that it looks like a semi-automatic rifle to me and I have a semi-automatic, a bolt action rifle and a semi-automatic shotgun that could use to eliminate as a threat to you or any other blue reading this.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
03-05-2018, 12:06 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2018, 12:21 AM by Classic-Xer.)
(03-04-2018, 10:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Soviet Union has not been in existence for 27 years now, and it hasn't been an 'Evil Empire' since Gorbachev acceded to power. The only threat of Soviet military expansion would have been created by the victim, such as by terrorist acts against the USSR.
I might prefer that retailers were still selling classical compact disks, but the economic realities do not support this. It is no longer a profit for a merchant of audio and video. I must rely instead upon what I already have or resort to internet transactions. It may be a pity, but that is something to which I must adjust.
All states have a legal minimum age of 21 for the sale and consumption of into0xicating liquors even if the legal age for voting is 18. Youth between the ages of 18 and 21 were troublesome customers of alcoholic beverages because they
were more likely to drive drunk than older drivers and because 18-year-old boys were using alcohol to loosen the inhibitions of girls under 18 to have sex and get pregnant and contract STDs for which they were unready. But as it is, intoxicating liquors are heavily regulated. 18-year-olds have been getting firearms for younger gang members.
Guns? I can think of people to whom I do not want guns sold. People too stupid to merit execution (that is an IQ of 70 or less) probably should be denied firearms. Likewise anyone adjudicated insane. If one has diminished capacity for purposes of criminal sentencing, then one should not have a firearm. Persons who have committed a crime (and making a terrorist threat as did Nikolas Cruz) should not get firearms. Addicts and habitual drunks? Likewise. Me? Sure. A little over a year and a half ago I left hints that I was contemplating suicide as everything went wrong in my life.
I see Dick's Sporting Goods making a decision that capitalist firms do frequently, cutting a line of merchandise because that merchandise either
(1) is no longer profitable to sell
(2) it does not handle well, or
(3) the product line creates risks of huge losses due to liability lawsuits.
Dick's isn't taking them off their shelves. Dick's is excluding a certain group of legal aged customers from buying them in their stores. I can still buy one at Dick's Sporting Good's. I won't but I could.
BTW, I should also mention that exterminating dumb people sounds like something Hitler would suggest, German people would support and the SS would see to carrying out.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(03-05-2018, 12:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-04-2018, 10:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Soviet Union has not been in existence for 27 years now, and it hasn't been an 'Evil Empire' since Gorbachev acceded to power. The only threat of Soviet military expansion would have been created by the victim, such as by terrorist acts against the USSR.
I might prefer that retailers were still selling classical compact disks, but the economic realities do not support this. It is no longer a profit for a merchant of audio and video. I must rely instead upon what I already have or resort to internet transactions. It may be a pity, but that is something to which I must adjust.
All states have a legal minimum age of 21 for the sale and consumption of into0xicating liquors even if the legal age for voting is 18. Youth between the ages of 18 and 21 were troublesome customers of alcoholic beverages because they
were more likely to drive drunk than older drivers and because 18-year-old boys were using alcohol to loosen the inhibitions of girls under 18 to have sex and get pregnant and contract STDs for which they were unready. But as it is, intoxicating liquors are heavily regulated. 18-year-olds have been getting firearms for younger gang members.
Guns? I can think of people to whom I do not want guns sold. People too stupid to merit execution (that is an IQ of 70 or less) probably should be denied firearms. Likewise anyone adjudicated insane. If one has diminished capacity for purposes of criminal sentencing, then one should not have a firearm. Persons who have committed a crime (and making a terrorist threat as did Nikolas Cruz) should not get firearms. Addicts and habitual drunks? Likewise. Me? Sure. A little over a year and a half ago I left hints that I was contemplating suicide as everything went wrong in my life.
I see Dick's Sporting Goods making a decision that capitalist firms do frequently, cutting a line of merchandise because that merchandise either
(1) is no longer profitable to sell
(2) it does not handle well, or
(3) the product line creates risks of huge losses due to liability lawsuits.
Dick's isn't taking them off their shelves. Dick's is excluding a certain group of legal aged customers from buying them in their stores. I can still buy one at Dick's Sporting Good's. I won't but I could.
BTW, I should also mention that exterminating dumb people sounds like something Hitler would suggest, German people would support and the SS would see to carrying out.
Having to pass an IQ test with an IQ of 70 or higher to be able to purchase a firearm might not be such a bad idea. After all that is the minimum standard of mental capacity allowed for facing capital punishment (usually for murder) in the United States.
Criminals tend to be below average in intelligence. About the only smart criminals are sociopaths and psychopaths, but most are dullards.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-04-2018, 09:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You don't see an issue/problem with a LEGAL age group of LEGAL status, who are LEGAL to LEGALLY purchase a LEGAL product (firearm, alcohol, cigarettes or any other products available for sale to public in their store) being refused and denied of the right of doing so? THE LAW OR THEMSELVES. IT OBVIOUSLY WASN'T THE LAW.
Who gave them that right (a group of arrogant blue idiots view themselves as being above the law who are used being held unaccountable or a group self righteous blues who view themselves as morally superior to everyone else or a group foolish blues who make their business decisions based feelings or popularity instead of business knowledge and common sense) to do what they did in AMERICA?
Your right to buy in no way implies my obligation to sell, unless I already sell the product or service to some but deny that product or service to members of a protected class. The second half of that sentence is only true because laws have been passed to make it true. Barring those laws, businesses could discriminate on any bases they choose. You may not like that, but that's the limit of the mandate. All the protected classes have been defined by our civil rights laws and, indirectly, by the constitution. In this case, you are implying that the 2nd Amendment mandates that 18 year olds cannot be denied the right to buy the guns of their choice. Even Scalia balked at that. I don't care for the Heller ruling, but Scalia made it clear that limits can be imposed.
Classic-Xer Wrote:ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE RUSSIANS (AN OLD RUSSIAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE OLD SOVIET UNION IN YOUR CASE OR REMNANT FROM THE COLD WAR IN YOUR CASE) that I'm still hearing about in the news? If so, that would explain why you are so off as far as your understanding and knowledge of AMERICA AND AMERICANS. Now, if its a matter of reasoning and serious lack of reasoning for whatever reason, that would explain it too. My values are clear and rather steady and widely held and recognized. My values aren't confusing and do not contradict and run into conflict and sparsely held and unrecognizable.
For a movement built on loving the Russians, this is, frankly, a bit bizarre ... but carry on.
Classic-Xer Wrote:If the banks don't kill them by shutting down or severely limiting their credit lines, the class action lawsuits and major lawsuits and the federal and state fines associated with breaking the law and the business disruptions that scare off/turn off customers and costumer losses and the sell off of stock by shareholders are going to severely cripple and most likely kill them from losses of operating capital and cash flow. Bye Bye Dick's Sporting Goods.
This I seriously doubt. Dick's may lose some business, gain some other business it wouldn't have otherwise, and will thrive or fail as a result. Management made a business decision. That's the job of management, and it looks like sound judgement to me. I doubt they did it for purely selfless reasons. Likewise, their creditors are not likely to alter their relationships in any way.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-04-2018, 11:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-04-2018, 12:58 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-03-2018, 06:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Are we looking at a fully automatic rifle or a semi automatic rifle? Because that is the REAL difference between a so-called weapon of war and an AR-15. You keep slamming me about this or that and over this or that and I keep reminding you and every other ARROGANT BLUE that you guys don't know shit about me. I JUST MIGHT BE ABLE TO SURPRISE/SHOCK YOU. Do you like California? Does California look like a nice place for blues to live? I could live without California. I could live without blues and all the trouble that they seem to start or create for the rest of society.
I've used the M-16, which is the fully automatic version of this weapon. The typical use in war is either single fire or short bursts (2 or 3 rounds). Since single fire is a typical military mode, and the weapon in question is the semi-automatic-only version of a standard issue military weapon, why is this not a military weapon?
And you're right that none of us really know one another. You live in a blue/purple state, so you are not like a typical red state resident. California, with a little of everything, looks like a nation rather than a state. There are parts that would suit you much better than me.
It looks like what you used in Vietnam but it isn't like what you used in Vietnam. You know that's true and I know that's true. What's the point of trying to convince me otherwise when both know the truth. I own a Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle. A model that was used in Vietnam and still in service today. My buddy carried/ used one during the 1st Iraq war. I've used an AR-15. I had to pull the trigger to fire a round. I had to pull the trigger multiple times to fire multiple rounds. If I held the trigger after firing a round, no more rounds were fired. You're making a silly argument that isn't going anyplace with me as far as legality gun.
It's a scary looking weapon, I'll give you that one. It's a dangerous weapon, I'll give you that one too. It' a weapon that can harm a lot of people in a short amount of time when in the wrong hands or the hands of the wrong people, I will give you that one too. It's a weapon that can fire more rounds than the average firearm is able to, I'll give you that one too. I'm reasonable, I'm rational and I'm not stupid. However, my view of it is that it looks like a semi-automatic rifle to me and I have a semi-automatic, a bolt action rifle and a semi-automatic shotgun that could use to eliminate as a threat to you or any other blue reading this.
You agreed more than you disagreed with me, and where you agreed is where the problem lies. Being able to fire 20 or more rounds without reloading is huge issue, in my opinion. Having rounds that kill or maim easily is also an issue. Do you know what happens when one of these relatively light rounds enters a body? It tumbles, because it's supposed to tumble. When it tumbles, it destroys everything it touches. It's designed to kill people -- full stop! It's not a weapon that belongs in civilian hands.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
03-05-2018, 02:52 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2018, 03:16 PM by Classic-Xer.)
(03-05-2018, 11:05 AM)David Horn Wrote: (03-04-2018, 11:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-04-2018, 12:58 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-03-2018, 06:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Are we looking at a fully automatic rifle or a semi automatic rifle? Because that is the REAL difference between a so-called weapon of war and an AR-15. You keep slamming me about this or that and over this or that and I keep reminding you and every other ARROGANT BLUE that you guys don't know shit about me. I JUST MIGHT BE ABLE TO SURPRISE/SHOCK YOU. Do you like California? Does California look like a nice place for blues to live? I could live without California. I could live without blues and all the trouble that they seem to start or create for the rest of society.
I've used the M-16, which is the fully automatic version of this weapon. The typical use in war is either single fire or short bursts (2 or 3 rounds). Since single fire is a typical military mode, and the weapon in question is the semi-automatic-only version of a standard issue military weapon, why is this not a military weapon?
And you're right that none of us really know one another. You live in a blue/purple state, so you are not like a typical red state resident. California, with a little of everything, looks like a nation rather than a state. There are parts that would suit you much better than me.
It looks like what you used in Vietnam but it isn't like what you used in Vietnam. You know that's true and I know that's true. What's the point of trying to convince me otherwise when both know the truth. I own a Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle. A model that was used in Vietnam and still in service today. My buddy carried/ used one during the 1st Iraq war. I've used an AR-15. I had to pull the trigger to fire a round. I had to pull the trigger multiple times to fire multiple rounds. If I held the trigger after firing a round, no more rounds were fired. You're making a silly argument that isn't going anyplace with me as far as legality gun.
It's a scary looking weapon, I'll give you that one. It's a dangerous weapon, I'll give you that one too. It' a weapon that can harm a lot of people in a short amount of time when in the wrong hands or the hands of the wrong people, I will give you that one too. It's a weapon that can fire more rounds than the average firearm is able to, I'll give you that one too. I'm reasonable, I'm rational and I'm not stupid. However, my view of it is that it looks like a semi-automatic rifle to me and I have a semi-automatic, a bolt action rifle and a semi-automatic shotgun that could use to eliminate as a threat to you or any other blue reading this.
You agreed more than you disagreed with me, and where you agreed is where the problem lies. Being able to fire 20 or more rounds without reloading is huge issue, in my opinion. Having rounds that kill or maim easily is also an issue. Do you know what happens when one of these relatively light rounds enters a body? It tumbles, because it's supposed to tumble. When it tumbles, it destroys everything it touches. It's designed to kill people -- full stop! It's not a weapon that belongs in civilian hands.
Guns are dangerous. I'd say 97% of us would agree that guns are dangerous. How many people view themselves as dangerous people and view most other people as being dangerous people? 3-5% maybe. How many assault rifles are currently in the hands of civilians? Millions. How many have been used for mass shootings? Less than 100 over several years. The most dangerous gun in America is the handgun which are owned by millions of more people. How many people buy guns to kill innocent people? I'd say less than one percent? How many buy them for individual self defense or the protection of people or hobby/activity or hunting? I'd say 99%.
The rounds that I use mushroom on impact and release shrapnel and make a large exit hole coming out.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
03-05-2018, 03:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2018, 05:07 PM by Classic-Xer.)
(03-05-2018, 10:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: Your right to buy in no way implies my obligation to sell, unless I already sell the product or service to some but deny that product or service to members of a protected class. The second half of that sentence is only true because laws have been passed to make it true. Barring those laws, businesses could discriminate on any bases they choose. You may not like that, but that's the limit of the mandate. All the protected classes have been defined by our civil rights laws and, indirectly, by the constitution. In this case, you are implying that the 2nd Amendment mandates that 18 year olds cannot be denied the right to buy the guns of their choice. Even Scalia balked at that. I don't care for the Heller ruling, but Scalia made it clear that limits can be imposed.
Privately speaking or conducting business man to man/person to person or while conducting private business within a private setting that's true/correct. We're not talking about those situations, we talking about a national chain who is in retail business whose doors are open to the general public. A corporation who is operating under the legal jurisdiction of both the state and federal government and the state and federal laws that pertain to gun sales. The 18-20 year old's who Dick's has excluded are of legal age to purchase a shotgun of any kind or a long gun or rifle of any kind within the United State of America and The State of Minnesota according to the states and federal law that exist today. They also have a legal right to purchase legal guns according to the US Constitution as it stands today. I mentioned AGE. Is age discrimination mentioned and recognized in state and federal laws.
(03-05-2018, 10:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: For a movement built on loving the Russians, this is, frankly, a bit bizarre ... but carry on.
Bizarre or a damn good observation.
(03-05-2018, 10:56 AM)David Horn Wrote: This I seriously doubt. Dick's may lose some business, gain some other business it wouldn't have otherwise, and will thrive or fail as a result. Management made a business decision. That's the job of management, and it looks like sound judgement to me. I doubt they did it for purely selfless reasons. Likewise, their creditors are not likely to alter their relationships in any way.
I'll be saying "I told you so" within a year or two.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
03-05-2018, 04:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2018, 12:14 AM by Eric the Green.)
(03-04-2018, 12:55 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-03-2018, 11:28 PM)skier Wrote: When our overlords make a decree, they always sell it as a minor temporary law that only affects Muslims, junkies, sex offenders, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, or blacks. The 1% doesn't mention that the law will become permanent and more draconian.
No one cares if owning cows are illegal, yoga pants are illegal, teen driving is illegal, or smoking is illegal. The problem is what happens when your job is banned, the government steals your house, tortures your family, or sends you to the concentration camps.
Are you just going to take it?
Dude, you got to get off the 1% thingy (a well known liberal meme). Half of the 1% wanted Jeb Bush. The other half of the 1% wanted Hilary Clinton and the 40 some % wanted Trump.
According to these articles, the poorer people still voted for Clinton, and the rich were evenly split.
Mrs Clinton had the majority of voters on lower incomes, with 52% of those on incomes below $50,000 (£40,000) a year supporting her compared with 41% voting for her opponent. Among those earning more than $50,000, it was 49% to Mr Trump compared with 47% to Mrs Clinton.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37922587
" Broken down by income bracket, 52% of voters earning less than $50,000 a year – who make up 36% of the electorate – voted for Clinton, and 41% for Trump.
But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls
It's true though that the Democrats' share of wealthy voters have increased in the 2012 and 2016 elections, because they are more educated and more diverse than in the past. And education level has become a more important factor in peoples' vote.
Up through 2008, this is how it looked:
![[Image: lotto-1.png]](https://media.salon.com/2015/04/lotto-1.png)
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/new-evidence-that-the-ric_b_7153396.html
But this Vox article said they were evenly split in 2012.
https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-wealthy-party
![[Image: Fig_1presidential_vote.0.png]](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/xlUBKKjNykp8408S33FG5zZnOkE=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6586213/Fig_1presidential_vote.0.png)
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us...oted-2016/
This site says the rich (not the 1% but those making $100,000 or more), voted for Romney:
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us...oted-2012/
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
I don't think it's that difficult to define a gun that should be outlawed as an "assault weapon." Specific models should not be outlawed, and looks don't matter. A standard of how fast it fires, combined with whether it can use an extra magazine of ammunition, can be determined. The magazines can be outlawed too, along with bump stocks. Age limits for buying guns can be passed too. I think it's a question, therefore, of political decision, rather than difficulty in defining a "semi-automatic."
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(03-05-2018, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think it's that difficult to define a gun that should be outlawed as an "assault weapon." Specific models should not be outlawed, and looks don't matter. A standard of how fast it fires, combined with whether it can use an extra magazine of ammunition, can be determined. The magazines can be outlawed too, along with bump stocks. Age limits for buying guns can be passed too. I think it's a question, therefore, of political decision, rather than difficulty in defining a "semi-automatic."
I disagree with the idea of banning model numbers. These can be changed faster than a prohibitionist can pass laws.
And, of course, it is illegal to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The inability to reach a supermajority makes the whole thing mute.
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.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(03-05-2018, 08:17 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (03-05-2018, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think it's that difficult to define a gun that should be outlawed as an "assault weapon." Specific models should not be outlawed, and looks don't matter. A standard of how fast it fires, combined with whether it can use an extra magazine of ammunition, can be determined. The magazines can be outlawed too, along with bump stocks. Age limits for buying guns can be passed too. I think it's a question, therefore, of political decision, rather than difficulty in defining a "semi-automatic."
I disagree with the idea of banning model numbers. These can be changed faster than a prohibitionist can pass laws.
And, of course, it is illegal to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The inability to reach a supermajority makes the whole thing mute.
Certainly for now it looks daunting.
It's not illegal because all rights have limits.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(03-05-2018, 11:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (03-05-2018, 08:17 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (03-05-2018, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think it's that difficult to define a gun that should be outlawed as an "assault weapon." Specific models should not be outlawed, and looks don't matter. A standard of how fast it fires, combined with whether it can use an extra magazine of ammunition, can be determined. The magazines can be outlawed too, along with bump stocks. Age limits for buying guns can be passed too. I think it's a question, therefore, of political decision, rather than difficulty in defining a "semi-automatic."
I disagree with the idea of banning model numbers. These can be changed faster than a prohibitionist can pass laws.
And, of course, it is illegal to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The inability to reach a supermajority makes the whole thing mute.
Certainly for now it looks daunting.
It's not illegal because all rights have limits.
Rights are limited in that they do not give any ability to harm others, nor violate the rights of others.
I keep asking for other limitations, to no avail. People say the constitution can be ignored, but never ever say when. I think I am the only one who states the limits traditionally placed on the Bill of Rights.
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.
|
