US Election 2016

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Yet a lot of people probably still are voting for her and will likely vote for her come election time. IDIOTS.

Obviously Volo, she is going to win the election. But Volo its not nice to call people idiots just because they support a different political view than you, its also untrue and libelous 

 

I would support and vote Clinton if  I was an US citizen...does this make me an idiot ?

 

It is neither untrue nor libelous to say that Hillary Clinton supporters are idiots. First of all idiot is a subjective term and absent a universally accepted definition the actual meaning of the word is the prerogative of the user. Therefore it cannot be libelous because the pejorative cannot be untrue in the subjective sense. If he had said all Hillary Clinton supporters were child molesters THAT would be libelous. On that note accusing Volo of libel is itself libelous since obviously the underlying fact that the charge is predicated on, that Volo called someone a thing that was a lie is itself a lie. 

 

You might want to get a lawyer Bruce. 

 

 

Okay  so  suggesting you can't sue someone in the USA  if you get called an idiot? How is idiot subjective....surly this is a negative word?

 

First of all Volo is in Canada. They do things differently. They have this reputation for being nice and well mannered but all that means is the say "Have a nice day" after the f--k your s--t all up. The definition of idiot is someone who is stupid. The definition of stupid is someone who is lacking intelligence. Volo has an IQ of 240 therefore almost everyone is technically less intelligent than he is. That means 1) It is subjectively true that if a person of greater intelligence refers to a person of lesser intelligence as an idiot it is not a lie. 2) Subjectivity and negativity are not mutually exclusive.

 

Bruce I've got a good buzz going and 3/4 of a liter of fine Kentucky single barrel sour mash on my desk. You wanna play word games I can do this all night! 

 

I would prefer not to play word games  but use this time to debate some interesting points with you ....since you in the mood and so am I 

 

Lets forget the idiot insult, I agree with you that the word is subjective

 

GD I want to throw an interesting theory towards you and see what you say? I very keen to get your feedback as I know you are honest but polite ....u keen to discuss my theory?

 

Its about the way most people on the Internet and forums have 2 different "personalities " but I have only one and this is why I often get misunderstood 

 

But dont feel obliged to have this debate if you dont want to but I think you will find it interesting?

[Guard Dog]

The two different personalities most folks have are 1) Screwing around and 2) Not screwing around. Obviously (to me at least) my last two posts fall in the the former category. If someone posts something ludicrous or even mean sounding it was probably meant as sarcastic or even dark humor. There are genuine a------s around but not many of them. Most of the time it's meant to be funny. I realize that is hard to pick up on a text forum, especially one in english if it isn't your first language. I remember when I was working in Mexico I didn't get a lot of the jokes because my spanish wasn't 100% and I spoke mainly Castillan spanish not latin spanish.

 

So my advice is don't worry too much about it. When you're having a serious discussion you generally get serious responses but there is a lot of humor in the thread (really is there anything more preposterously humorous than this election) so keep in mind not all responses are meant to be taken seriously. And if there is a miscommunication don't sweat it. I seriously doubt anyone actually gets mad over anything the read here. At least they shouldn't. 

 

By coming to this board you are expecting to get a wide range of opinions. Heck that's why I keep coming back 12 years after finding it. If I wanted to hear my own opinions parroted back to me I'll go in my bathroom and shout at the wall or something. Heck I get in disagreements here all the time and I still like and respect everyone here. I've had heated exchanges with Calax, Leferd, Mkreu and others not here any more and it doesn't matter. They are all still good dudes. 

 

My advice is this:

1. Don't take anything personally. Don't ever think you are being insulted. It is almost never meant that way. If you think it is it's probably one of those miscommunications I was talking about.
2.  There is nothing wrong with being the devil's advocate. I can't even count the number of times I've argued a position I didn't even agree with just for the sake of forum chatter. The point is not to convince anyone of anything, the point is to enjoy the discussion.
3. Don't expect to change anyone's mind. Calax and I have been talking politics here for years. I haven't moved him any closer right, he hasn't moved me any closer left. But that really wasn't the point. I know what he thinks, he knows what i think. Hey along the way someones opinion about something might actually change. I'd like to think my posting here might at least have explained the libertarian political philosophy to some folks even if they didn't buy in. And of they did that's great but it wasn't ever the objective. The discussion itself is always the objective.

Just have fun. Just enjoy the discussion. that's all it's really about.

[Leferd]

I've had heated exchanges with Calax, Leferd

 

Yeah, Jerk.

[Zoraptor]

I'm more than a little well aware of the 12th amendment.

I'd be very surprised if you weren't, otoh, I'd be surprised if Longknife knew about it as it's not exactly the most widely known amendment and in most countries such a situation would be solved by a run off vote between the two highest candidates or highest voted option winning directly.

 

As for Parliamentary systems. If one likes true individual freedom, dislikes monarchy, dislikes oligarchy, and isn't a fan of corruption, they're horrific. On the surface they look good, sure. People get to vote, so how is that bad? Right?

 

Parliamentary systems were by and large fought for, not granted. Not always with violent revolution, but at least in the same way women got the vote, and violent revolution is hardly a plus in getting to a workable system. Having said that, the 'mother of all parliaments' had its two most significant moments on the field of battle at Runnymede (Magna Carta) and the extended Civil War to Glorious Revolution period, ie in actual bloody revolt and revolution. Plus, most parliamentary systems nowadays are republics with not even a figurehead monarchy.

 

(Please, don't start in on the Gough Whitlam again either, that was unique to Ockeronia and it has been impossible to repeat for forty years. The following election also voted the dismissed government out, emphatically.)

 

The U.S. system isn't perfect, but most of the big problems with it came later, and are the result of a myriad of things (most not accidental) that manifested themselves over time. ie: The two party system can be broken. Most of what keeps them in power is inertia, and a lack of will on the part of the American people over all (however this has been changing). Party systems are inherently corrupt, something most of those who laid the framework for the U.S. Federal government knew well. They attempted to design a system to thwart them, and they did succeed to a degree. It took a long time to get where we are now.

While I mostly agree there are some pretty major intrinsic weaknesses, First Past the Post leads to 2 party rule and that makes it extremely difficult to change anything unless it benefits both parties- and changing rules to allow viable 3rd parties obviously doesn't benefit them. And as much as the more complicated US system adds safeguards and protects the status quo, once the safeguards are thwarted the benefits of those safeguards become a weakness as the system itself tends to protect the new, worse, status quo as there's no incentive for those in power to undo them and so little chance of anything genuinely shaking up the system.

[Guard Dog]

 

I've had heated exchanges with Calax, Leferd

Yeah, Jerk.

 

[Namutree]

Honestly, the party system doesn't matter as much as the people. This system would be cleaned up quickly and easily if people cared more.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Namutree

[Valsuelm]

 

I'm more than a little well aware of the 12th amendment.

I'd be very surprised if you weren't, otoh, I'd be surprised if Longknife knew about it as it's not exactly the most widely known amendment and in most countries such a situation would be solved by a run off vote between the two highest candidates or highest voted option winning directly.

 

Which, I agree, would be a better way to handle it. The 12th amendment is one of the very few instances in the U.S. Constitution that I would say is actually antiquated. At the time it was adopted, run off elections really were not very feasible, and having the government in flux for an extended period of time to conduct them so soon after it's founding was quite less than ideal, when many (rightly or wrongly) thought there was a very real threat of England coming back in arms.

 

As for Parliamentary systems. If one likes true individual freedom, dislikes monarchy, dislikes oligarchy, and isn't a fan of corruption, they're horrific. On the surface they look good, sure. People get to vote, so how is that bad? Right?

 

Parliamentary systems were by and large fought for, not granted. Not always with violent revolution, but at least in the same way women got the vote, and violent revolution is hardly a plus in getting to a workable system. Having said that, the 'mother of all parliaments' had its two most significant moments on the field of battle at Runnymede (Magna Carta) and the extended Civil War to Glorious Revolution period, ie in actual bloody revolt and revolution. Plus, most parliamentary systems nowadays are republics with not even a figurehead monarchy.

 

(Please, don't start in on the Gough Whitlam again either, that was unique to Ockeronia and it has been impossible to repeat for forty years. The following election also voted the dismissed government out, emphatically.)

 

To be honest, arguing against a Parliamentary system just isn't something I want to do all that much. I don't live in one, am not concerned I will anytime soon, and generally think it's the burden of those who do to shuck it if they so wish to. If I did live in one I'd be a very active opponent to them, and much more vocal in regards to getting the word out as to why they are bad (if I was allowed to, the once mostly universally cherished freedom of speech seems to be on the decline in much of western civilization at the moment.). Frankly though, I think many of the nations which have parliamentary systems (in particular in Europe) have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. I only said what I said as Longknife seems to think it's a better system. It isn't. I trust he is smart enough to do the research and thinking on his own. As flawed as the U.S. system is, tweaking that system is a much better solution, than adopting a parliamentary system. Also, an arguably much easier thing to do (as much as it is anything but easy).

 

The U.S. system isn't perfect, but most of the big problems with it came later, and are the result of a myriad of things (most not accidental) that manifested themselves over time. ie: The two party system can be broken. Most of what keeps them in power is inertia, and a lack of will on the part of the American people over all (however this has been changing). Party systems are inherently corrupt, something most of those who laid the framework for the U.S. Federal government knew well. They attempted to design a system to thwart them, and they did succeed to a degree. It took a long time to get where we are now.

While I mostly agree there are some pretty major intrinsic weaknesses, First Past the Post leads to 2 party rule and that makes it extremely difficult to change anything unless it benefits both parties- and changing rules to allow viable 3rd parties obviously doesn't benefit them. And as much as the more complicated US system adds safeguards and protects the status quo, once the safeguards are thwarted the benefits of those safeguards become a weakness as the system itself tends to protect the new, worse, status quo as there's no incentive for those in power to undo them and so little chance of anything genuinely shaking up the system.

 

Corrupt people will always find a way to game any system that is made up of people, which all political systems are, no matter how sound the system is to thwart corruption. It was the idea of many in the beginning that the system would need to be tweaked from time to time to continually thwart corruption, hence part of the reasoning behind the clause to amend the Constitution. In particular the part where the States could call for a convention, something that has so far never happened (though the movement for this to happen is growing). However some, such as Jefferson, thought potentially violent revolution would probably be necessary every generation or two if the people wanted to remain free.

 

The peaceful means of change though is somewhat predicated on the idea that the people of the U.S. as a whole would be vigilant to at least some degree in avoiding the tyranny of corruption and protecting their liberties, primarily through adequate representation. [With the adoption of the 17th amendment and the so far failure to ratify the 'congressional apportionment amendment' it certainly is questionable if not outright obvious that adequate representation does not exist  for either the People or the States within the U.S. at the Federal level. Which I personally would argue is probably problem #1 within the U.S., and one that most people haven't even considered much if at all.] At various points in history, and certainly now, it is quite arguable that they have not been such. Currently however, things are really beginning to boil for a lot of folks here in the U.S.. Whatever happens this election, I think there's a strong probability of it either being a watershed moment itself, or one is going to be born in response to it (and something much more potent than the birth/growth of the 'Tea Party' in response to Obama's inauguration and actions in '09) . One way or another, I do think things are going to change in some pretty major ways. Will they be better or worse? I'd say it's too early to tell for sure.

 

Note: I know you're already aware of most if not all of this, as it's been obvious to me that you are one of the more informed and intelligent people on this forum. Like you, to a degree, I'm throwing this out there for the possible and hopeful benefit of others. Else, I'd just PM you.

 

Cheers!

 

 

WTH at no *cheers with a beer mug* emoticon. Get on that moderators!   

 

 

Comments inline.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Wrath of Dagon]

We don't need a parliamentary system, but we do need viable third parties. The two major parties are incredibly corrupt, and the voter has nowhere to go because the other party is pretty much diametrically opposed to everything the voter believes. If we had more parties, they would actually have to compete for voters, instead of telling them to go pound sand as they do now. All that's needed is to add run offs to the general election (since the voter doesn't hurt the biggest party he's ideologically closest to by voting for someone else in general). Of course the major parties aren't interested in anything like that, so seems unlikely. Although the West Coast states now have a primary in which everyone can run, making the general election the run-off (not for president though, also that system seems unconstitutional). Edit: For example, if we had run-offs now, Bloomberg could run. If wouldn't matter if he lost and took away votes from the Democrat because in the run off his voters could still vote for the Democrat.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Longknife]

I only said what I said as Longknife seems to think it's a better system. It isn't. I trust he is smart enough to do the research and thinking on his own. As flawed as the U.S. system is, tweaking that system is a much better solution, than adopting a parliamentary system. Also, an arguably much easier thing to do (as much as it is anything but easy).

 

 

And why not? Curious to hear your reasons as to why not. Or if you're so adamant about not having one, what alternative would you propose to what we have now?

 

In Germany, parties can compromise amongst one another so as to combine votes to the benefit of both. The parties naturally gravitate towards their closest political allies for obvious reasons, and I as a citizen am free to vote for a smaller, less supported party and still have my vote count amongst the big two while my representation of my party does not go unnoticed, affording the smaller parties the momentum they would need to someday expand and grow larger.

 

In the USA, it's Democrat and Republican. Bernie Sanders is legit running as a democrat simply because running as anything else was suicide for his campaign and suicide for his chances. Ralph Nader actually spoke out in defense of Bernie's choice, agreeing 100% that it's impossible to make it as a third party candidate. In this system, my vote often gets "dumbed down" in the sense that if Republicans oppose abortion regardless of all conditions whereas Democrats are fully supportive of it, I MUST voice support for one of these two extremes without having an ability to cast my vote more specifically for a party that shares my views on the matter more precisely.

 

Democracy is a system of compromises, but when you only have two parties on the field total, then suddenly the American people themselves must compromise their ideals to those of the Democratic and Republican parties as entities. Meanwhile the Democratic and Republican parties only grow larger and larger because all money funneled through politics undoubtedly goes through them. Every lobbyist for drilling approaches the Republicans, every lobbyist wanting cleaner energy alternatives approaches the Democrats, and thus neither party realistically has a chance to fail because alternatives do not exist. These are parties that exist because the system - by design - cannot allow them to fail. They don't exist because they've earned the right to exist by doing a good job of properly representing the major opinions of the American people, they exist because the American people must compromise their values towards either "kill all the gays" or "let the gays have weddings with FABULOUS rainbow cakes and also give all of them 1 million dollars." It's not a system where the people are truly represented, and thus it is a failure.

 

 

Germany's system, comparatively, alleviates the problem to a degree by allowing for a system and an environment in which any sizeable group could theoretically create a party, give it whatever political stances they want, and if it itself receives enough support, they can "ride the coat tails" of larger political parties in order to gain more national recognition so that everyone knows of that party's existence, has faith in that party's ability to make an impact on politics (aka get elected representatives in office), thus the party becomes well known and everyone that agrees with said party has every opportunity to educate themselves enough and realize they ally with that party's ideals, and thus each party receives support far more accurate and in line with how the people of the country feel about said stances. This is also a system that's more difficult to corrupt because A.) It's not the same two political juggernauts that all lobbyists must go through and MUST give money to, and B.) Should a party prove itself to be incredibly susceptible to bribes and corruption, it's supporters should have little qualms about abandoning it since multiple other parties exist and it's not exactly hard for a new party to become established.

 

 

So how is this worse than what the USA has now? In my case, Bernie runs as an Independent, Donald Trump gets the largest vote come election time, but Bernie and Hillary can then create a coalition so that the combined Democrat-Independent vote outweighs that of Trump alone and reaches the neccesary 270 (or whatever it is), thus the presidency would still go to Clinton but with compromises from the Independents being forced upon the Democratic presidency. (yes a very rough example sadly, since obviously such a change can't happen overnight and our system currently isn't built to sustain such a thing)

 

How is this worse than the current "**** you, you're either an elephant or a donkey whether you like it or not" system that we have now?

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Also wanna clarify I'm not saying "yes by god we need a parliament so bad at any costs." The above run-off example could work too and what is important is that "too big to fail" needs to stop being a thing in all corners of the USA's systems, from business to politics. I simply ask because as a dual-citizen, I've experienced both the American system and the German system, and if you were to ask me which system is more corrupt and more easy to corrupt, it's not even a contest. I would legit think someone was pulling my leg (sometimes can't tell since it's fukn metal and all that) or trying to set up the punchline for a joke if someone on the street approached me asking which country currently houses the least corruptable election system. You seem to be of the opposite opinion in this, thus my curiousity.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

"Political Parties was a mistake" - George Washington, 1796

Edited April 21, 2016 by Meshugger

[Guard Dog]

Corruption? Bribery? Move along son, nothing to see here. 

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ad3c483d59c9463e9a52ef4bc00351e0/firms-paid-clinton-speeches-have-us-govt-interests

[Gorth]

"Political Parties was a mistake" - George Washington, 1796

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

― John Adams

 

In any case, blame Hamilton and Jefferson for the US having two parties

[Meshugger]

 

"Political Parties was a mistake" - George Washington, 1796

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

― John Adams

 

In any case, blame Hamilton and Jefferson for the US having two parties

 

 

True, my post was a tribute to George Washington's farewell speech, slightly misfired though.

[Longknife]

 

"Political Parties was a mistake" - George Washington, 1796

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

― John Adams

 

In any case, blame Hamilton and Jefferson for the US having two parties

 

 

 

I like how we missed that one BUT BY GOD GUYS THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE NEED GUNS IN AN ERA WHEN THE RIFLES WERE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FULLY AUTOMATIC 30-BULLETS-IN-THE-CHAMBER ASSAULT RIFLES WE HAVE TODAY. NOPE, NO NEED TO REGULATE THAT AT ALL!

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

WTH at no *cheers with a beer mug* emoticon. Get on that moderators!   

 

 

 

Here you go.

 

 

 

 

 

[Meshugger]

 

 

"Political Parties was a mistake" - George Washington, 1796

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

― John Adams

 

In any case, blame Hamilton and Jefferson for the US having two parties

 

 

 

I like how we missed that one BUT BY GOD GUYS THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE NEED GUNS IN AN ERA WHEN THE RIFLES WERE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FULLY AUTOMATIC 30-BULLETS-IN-THE-CHAMBER ASSAULT RIFLES WE HAVE TODAY. NOPE, NO NEED TO REGULATE THAT AT ALL!

 

 

The public had access to more powerful weapons than those issued by the army back in the day when the declaration of independence was a quite new piece of paper, completely legally of course.

 

So things haven't changed that much, relatively speaking.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Meshugger

[Longknife]

 

 

 

"Political Parties was a mistake" - George Washington, 1796

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

― John Adams

 

In any case, blame Hamilton and Jefferson for the US having two parties

 

 

 

I like how we missed that one BUT BY GOD GUYS THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE NEED GUNS IN AN ERA WHEN THE RIFLES WERE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FULLY AUTOMATIC 30-BULLETS-IN-THE-CHAMBER ASSAULT RIFLES WE HAVE TODAY. NOPE, NO NEED TO REGULATE THAT AT ALL!

 

 

The public had access to more powerful weapons than those issued by the army back in the day when the declaration of independence was a quite new piece of paper, completely legally of course.

 

So things haven't changed that much, relatively speaking.

 

 

 

But the objective situation matters a great deal.

 

In 1776 you murder a child for walking on your lawn and now you spend half an hour reloading while all your armed neighbors get a shot at you or have time to alert the authorities. In 2016, you murder half the room before the remaining half pulls their own assault rifles out, with enough shots between them to kill you and perhaps wound a couple more with some misfiring.

 

The purpose behind the 2nd Amendment is self defense. You can absolutely protect yourself with a pistol, rifle or shotgun. An assault rifle is, quite frankly, a terrible weapon for self-defense. You're at far greater risk of hitting someone you didn't intend to hit, or if you're shooting at an intruder in your home, you'll now have several holes in the wall behind him while you're also paying more for the use of the weapon itself. Why not just use a damned pistol?

 

People who buy assault rifles are either those that want it for recreation or those that are truly nutty. I'm sorry, but recreation doesn't hold a lot of value in the face of deadlier mass shootings.

[Guard Dog]

Gun control is a huge issue with me. I oppose just about every restriction on firearms ownership. I realize that is a difficult thing to understand but follow me on this. The left is always calling for "reasonable" restrictions. We do have reasonable restrictions already. It is illegal to own fully automatic weapons (without a license that is exceedingly difficult and expensive to get). It is illegal for minors or people with felony convictions to buy or own guns. It is illegal to buy a gun for someone else. It is illegal to own a weapon larger than .50 caliber or full jacketed or explosive, or phosphorus tipped ammunition. There are mandatory waiting periods in most states and criminal background checks in every state. My own state has a limit on how many firearms can be purchased in a 30 day period. These are all reasonable restrictions.

 

And the Democrats would tell us they are not enough. There is something I'd say every gun owner understands (at least I do and every other gun owner I know does) that the ultimate goal of the Democrats is not regulation. Every "reasonable" restriction begets another, and another, and another. And every one is a segue to the ultimate goal of prohibition followed with confiscation. So many wonder why we oppose each new "reasonable" regulation it is because we are not dealing with a honest partner in the US Government. They are not looking out for the safety and well being of the citizens. They are using tragedy as a lever in a cynical pursuit of their own goals. When every step leads us closer to the end it only makes sense to fight like mad hell against each new step. And so we do.

 

That was just my $.02 on the general subject. Now as to Longknifes point on Assault Weapons Bans, the problem is this: We are talking about banning guns and making legally owned private property illegal because of how it looks. That is it. Semi automatic firearms are not illegal. I own a Marlin .223 semi-auto rifle. Do you know what the practical difference between that rifle (which has never been or even suggested to be banned) and an AR-15 (which has been)? The AR-15 has a detachable magazine. That is it. The use practically the same ammunition, fire at the same rate, and if the AR-15 has a 10 round clip can fire those 10 shots in the exact same time. But the Marlin looks like a hunting rifle. The AR-15 looks like an assault rifle because it has the plastic grips, carrying handle, flash suppressor, rear charging handle and detachable magazine. All cosmetic things.  It is utterly asinine to take someone's private property away from them because it "looks" scary.

 

Now if they want to limit magazine sizes for weapons that have detachable magazines, I could go along with that. Provided it was done in a practical way. But banning or confiscating the property of people who have broken no laws because of the illegal actions of someone who did? No. No chance in hell.

 

Hillary is unequivocally pro-gun control and that is another reason she will never get my vote

[BruceVC]

Gun control is a huge issue with me. I oppose just about every restriction on firearms ownership. I realize that is a difficult thing to understand but follow me on this. The left is always calling for "reasonable" restrictions. We do have reasonable restrictions already. It is illegal to own fully automatic weapons (without a license that is exceedingly difficult and expensive to get). It is illegal for minors or people with felony convictions to buy or own guns. It is illegal to buy a gun for someone else. It is illegal to own a weapon larger than .50 caliber or full jacketed or explosive, or phosphorus tipped ammunition. There are mandatory waiting periods in most states and criminal background checks in every state. My own state has a limit on how many firearms can be purchased in a 30 day period. These are all reasonable restrictions.

 

And the Democrats would tell us they are not enough. There is something I'd say every gun owner understands (at least I do and every other gun owner I know does) that the ultimate goal of the Democrats is not regulation. Every "reasonable" restriction begets another, and another, and another. And every one is a segue to the ultimate goal of prohibition followed with confiscation. So many wonder why we oppose each new "reasonable" regulation it is because we are not dealing with a honest partner in the US Government. They are not looking out for the safety and well being of the citizens. They are using tragedy as a lever in a cynical pursuit of their own goals. When every step leads us closer to the end it only makes sense to fight like mad hell against each new step. And so we do.

 

That was just my $.02 on the general subject. Now as to Longknifes point on Assault Weapons Bans, the problem is this: We are talking about banning guns and making legally owned private property illegal because of how it looks. That is it. Semi automatic firearms are not illegal. I own a Marlin .223 semi-auto rifle. Do you know what the practical difference between that rifle (which has never been or even suggested to be banned) and an AR-15 (which has been)? The AR-15 has a detachable magazine. That is it. The use practically the same ammunition, fire at the same rate, and if the AR-15 has a 10 round clip can fire those 10 shots in the exact same time. But the Marlin looks like a hunting rifle. The AR-15 looks like an assault rifle because it has the plastic grips, carrying handle, flash suppressor, rear charging handle and detachable magazine. All cosmetic things.  It is utterly asinine to take someone's private property away from them because it "looks" scary.

 

Now if they want to limit magazine sizes for weapons that have detachable magazines, I could go along with that. Provided it was done in a practical way. But banning or confiscating the property of people who have broken no laws because of the illegal actions of someone who did? No. No chance in hell.

 

Hillary is unequivocally pro-gun control and that is another reason she will never get my vote

GD please understand the whole world who understands gun control and in many cases has worst crime than the USA thinks the USA needs more gun control.....its really strange for outsiders 

 

People on these talk shows say things like " why do the Americans need so many guns " ....I explain to them one of the reasons is 

" many Americans really think the day may come when the Federal government will come for them and they want to be properly protected " 

[Malcador]

 

 

 

"Political Parties was a mistake" - George Washington, 1796

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

― John Adams

 

In any case, blame Hamilton and Jefferson for the US having two parties

 

I like how we missed that one BUT BY GOD GUYS THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE NEED GUNS IN AN ERA WHEN THE RIFLES WERE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FULLY AUTOMATIC 30-BULLETS-IN-THE-CHAMBER ASSAULT RIFLES WE HAVE TODAY. NOPE, NO NEED TO REGULATE THAT AT ALL!

Don't think full auto rifles are very easy to get in the US. Though not like that is a problem, single fire is much better.

 

Heh, read a letter to the editor about cops being heavily armed...with .40 Glocks

[Malcador]

 

 

 

"Political Parties was a mistake" - George Washington, 1796

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

― John Adams

 

In any case, blame Hamilton and Jefferson for the US having two parties

 

I like how we missed that one BUT BY GOD GUYS THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE NEED GUNS IN AN ERA WHEN THE RIFLES WERE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FULLY AUTOMATIC 30-BULLETS-IN-THE-CHAMBER ASSAULT RIFLES WE HAVE TODAY. NOPE, NO NEED TO REGULATE THAT AT ALL!

Don't think full auto rifles are very easy to get in the US. Though not like that is a problem, single fire is much better.

 

Heh, read a letter to the editor about cops being heavily armed...with .40 Glocks

[Amentep]

 

Gun control is a huge issue with me. I oppose just about every restriction on firearms ownership. I realize that is a difficult thing to understand but follow me on this. The left is always calling for "reasonable" restrictions. We do have reasonable restrictions already. It is illegal to own fully automatic weapons (without a license that is exceedingly difficult and expensive to get). It is illegal for minors or people with felony convictions to buy or own guns. It is illegal to buy a gun for someone else. It is illegal to own a weapon larger than .50 caliber or full jacketed or explosive, or phosphorus tipped ammunition. There are mandatory waiting periods in most states and criminal background checks in every state. My own state has a limit on how many firearms can be purchased in a 30 day period. These are all reasonable restrictions.

 

And the Democrats would tell us they are not enough. There is something I'd say every gun owner understands (at least I do and every other gun owner I know does) that the ultimate goal of the Democrats is not regulation. Every "reasonable" restriction begets another, and another, and another. And every one is a segue to the ultimate goal of prohibition followed with confiscation. So many wonder why we oppose each new "reasonable" regulation it is because we are not dealing with a honest partner in the US Government. They are not looking out for the safety and well being of the citizens. They are using tragedy as a lever in a cynical pursuit of their own goals. When every step leads us closer to the end it only makes sense to fight like mad hell against each new step. And so we do.

 

That was just my $.02 on the general subject. Now as to Longknifes point on Assault Weapons Bans, the problem is this: We are talking about banning guns and making legally owned private property illegal because of how it looks. That is it. Semi automatic firearms are not illegal. I own a Marlin .223 semi-auto rifle. Do you know what the practical difference between that rifle (which has never been or even suggested to be banned) and an AR-15 (which has been)? The AR-15 has a detachable magazine. That is it. The use practically the same ammunition, fire at the same rate, and if the AR-15 has a 10 round clip can fire those 10 shots in the exact same time. But the Marlin looks like a hunting rifle. The AR-15 looks like an assault rifle because it has the plastic grips, carrying handle, flash suppressor, rear charging handle and detachable magazine. All cosmetic things.  It is utterly asinine to take someone's private property away from them because it "looks" scary.

 

Now if they want to limit magazine sizes for weapons that have detachable magazines, I could go along with that. Provided it was done in a practical way. But banning or confiscating the property of people who have broken no laws because of the illegal actions of someone who did? No. No chance in hell.

 

Hillary is unequivocally pro-gun control and that is another reason she will never get my vote

GD please understand the whole world who understands gun control and in many cases has worst crime than the USA thinks the USA needs more gun control.....its really strange for outsiders 

 

People on these talk shows say things like " why do the Americans need so many guns " ....I explain to them one of the reasons is 

" many Americans really think the day may come when the Federal government will come for them and they want to be properly protected " 

 

 

In most of the mass shootings we've had, either the weapons were bought legally and the person passed all existing background checks or the guns were received illegally circumventing any checks and balances in place.  While some regulation might make a mass shooting less likely in the case of legal attainment, not even an out and out ban would stop people from being able to obtain illegal firearms without some massive changes in the nation and a complete loss of privacy with respect search laws.

[Guard Dog]

 

GD please understand the whole world who understands gun control and in many cases has worst crime than the USA thinks the USA needs more gun control.....its really strange for outsiders 

 

People on these talk shows say things like " why do the Americans need so many guns " ....I explain to them one of the reasons is 

" many Americans really think the day may come when the Federal government will come for them and they want to be properly protected " 

 

Let me give you a little insight into the psychology of the average American. We do not give a flying monkey f--k what the world thinks of how we govern ourselves at home. When it comes to what we do abroad that is certainly a consideration but on our own soil we are sovreign. The government that we all agreed to as outlined in the US Constitution is enjoined thusly in Amendment 2 "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The day that is rendered meaningless the entire thing becomes meaningless and there is no law nor guranteed rights for anyone if they can be taken away.

 

As for the implication that armed opposition to the US Government might someday be necessary, you seem to believe that is an irrational idea. Has any government ever become a threat to the safety, freedom, and well being of it's citizens? I think we all know the answer. But that isn't even the real reason. Why and how somone exercises a right is not a thing that ever needs to be explained to anyone.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Gun control is a huge issue with me. I oppose just about every restriction on firearms ownership. I realize that is a difficult thing to understand but follow me on this. The left is always calling for "reasonable" restrictions. We do have reasonable restrictions already. It is illegal to own fully automatic weapons (without a license that is exceedingly difficult and expensive to get). It is illegal for minors or people with felony convictions to buy or own guns. It is illegal to buy a gun for someone else. It is illegal to own a weapon larger than .50 caliber or full jacketed or explosive, or phosphorus tipped ammunition. There are mandatory waiting periods in most states and criminal background checks in every state. My own state has a limit on how many firearms can be purchased in a 30 day period. These are all reasonable restrictions.

 

And the Democrats would tell us they are not enough. There is something I'd say every gun owner understands (at least I do and every other gun owner I know does) that the ultimate goal of the Democrats is not regulation. Every "reasonable" restriction begets another, and another, and another. And every one is a segue to the ultimate goal of prohibition followed with confiscation. So many wonder why we oppose each new "reasonable" regulation it is because we are not dealing with a honest partner in the US Government. They are not looking out for the safety and well being of the citizens. They are using tragedy as a lever in a cynical pursuit of their own goals. When every step leads us closer to the end it only makes sense to fight like mad hell against each new step. And so we do.

 

That was just my $.02 on the general subject. Now as to Longknifes point on Assault Weapons Bans, the problem is this: We are talking about banning guns and making legally owned private property illegal because of how it looks. That is it. Semi automatic firearms are not illegal. I own a Marlin .223 semi-auto rifle. Do you know what the practical difference between that rifle (which has never been or even suggested to be banned) and an AR-15 (which has been)? The AR-15 has a detachable magazine. That is it. The use practically the same ammunition, fire at the same rate, and if the AR-15 has a 10 round clip can fire those 10 shots in the exact same time. But the Marlin looks like a hunting rifle. The AR-15 looks like an assault rifle because it has the plastic grips, carrying handle, flash suppressor, rear charging handle and detachable magazine. All cosmetic things.  It is utterly asinine to take someone's private property away from them because it "looks" scary.

 

Now if they want to limit magazine sizes for weapons that have detachable magazines, I could go along with that. Provided it was done in a practical way. But banning or confiscating the property of people who have broken no laws because of the illegal actions of someone who did? No. No chance in hell.

 

Hillary is unequivocally pro-gun control and that is another reason she will never get my vote

GD please understand the whole world who understands gun control and in many cases has worst crime than the USA thinks the USA needs more gun control.....its really strange for outsiders 

 

People on these talk shows say things like " why do the Americans need so many guns " ....I explain to them one of the reasons is 

" many Americans really think the day may come when the Federal government will come for them and they want to be properly protected " 

 

 

In most of the mass shootings we've had, either the weapons were bought legally and the person passed all existing background checks or the guns were received illegally circumventing any checks and balances in place.  While some regulation might make a mass shooting less likely in the case of legal attainment, not even an out and out ban would stop people from being able to obtain illegal firearms without some massive changes in the nation and a complete loss of privacy with respect search laws.

 

Amentep you are one of those people who always seems to make a reasonable point in way that I find generally makes sense 

 

But you cant be seriously suggesting tighter gun controls and banning certain guns wont make a real  difference..its been proven, its not even a reasonable debate?Dont believe what the NRA tell you 

[Guard Dog]

I'm curious Bruce. What firearms do you suggest should be banned?