(11-07-2020, 03:53 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 03:49 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]He makes more in monthly interest than your entire family will see your entire life. Should probably curb the loser talk moderator.
And pays less income tax than a part-time McDonald's employee.
Not to mention Deutsche Bank isn't standing by to seize my assets to settle unpaid debt.
(11-07-2020, 03:59 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 03:51 PM)Talented Kalamari Wrote: [ -> ]If Biden pushes for strong gun control legislation, gets us back to being screwed on trade deals with other countries, mandates mask wearing and the martial law- esque way of fighting a pandemic, I’m all for a 2nd secession. I will not live in a country where my personal freedoms and right to bear arms are compromised, and neither should you.
#1. No one is taking your guns. Relax.
#2. You don't understand international trade deals. Trump fixed nothing and hurt American businesses and consumers with the tariffs he imposed. Who do you think paid for those?
#3. Just put your damn mask on in public. Its not about you; its about preventing spread to protect the vulnerable.
#4. The FBI would be interested in your secession strategy. I think they are on Gate Parkway if you're interested in sharing your thoughts.
#1 Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what type of gun you own. Harris said she agreed with Beto O'Rourke's idea about going door to door and confiscating semi-automatic rifles from people, even though they were bought legally by law abiding citizens. In my book, that is stealing and that would not be tolerated. People are not gonna stand by and let the government steal their property.
(11-07-2020, 04:03 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 03:59 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]#1. No one is taking your guns. Relax.
#2. You don't understand international trade deals. Trump fixed nothing and hurt American businesses and consumers with the tariffs he imposed. Who do you think paid for those?
#3. Just put your damn mask on in public. Its not about you; its about preventing spread to protect the vulnerable.
#4. The FBI would be interested in your secession strategy. I think they are on Gate Parkway if you're interested in sharing your thoughts.
#1 Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what type of gun you own. Harris said she agreed with Beto O'Rourke's idea about going door to door and confiscating semi-automatic rifles from people, even though they were bought legally by law abiding citizens. In my book, that is stealing and that would not be tolerated. People are not gonna stand by and let the government steal their property.
I would differentiate "semi-automatic" from "assault" weapons. I am an avid gun owner... but I do not want assault weapons in the hands of people that should not have them. Those should have a higher standard.
The analogy I would use is with other countries having the ability to have their own military to protect themselves. I am all for it... it should be their right. But do you want them all to have access to nuclear weapons that can have grave consequences to a massive amount of people? Absolutely not. Its the same concept with assault weapons; albeit on a very different scale, obviously. If you believe everyone should have the right to own an assault weapon, applying that same logic on a larger scale would say all countries should be able to access nuclear weapons. Same argument, larger scale.
(11-07-2020, 04:09 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 04:03 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]#1 Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what type of gun you own. Harris said she agreed with Beto O'Rourke's idea about going door to door and confiscating semi-automatic rifles from people, even though they were bought legally by law abiding citizens. In my book, that is stealing and that would not be tolerated. People are not gonna stand by and let the government steal their property.
I would differentiate "semi-automatic" from "assault" weapons. I am an avid gun owner... but I do not want assault weapons in the hands of people that should not have them. Those should have a higher standard.
The analogy I would use is with other countries having the ability to have their own military to protect themselves. I am all for it... it should be their right. But do you want them all to have access to nuclear weapons that can have grave consequences to a massive amount of people? Absolutely not. Its the same concept with assault weapons; albeit on a very different scale, obviously. If you believe everyone should have the right to own an assault weapon, applying that same logic on a larger scale would say all countries should be able to access nuclear weapons. Same argument, larger scale.
Those two concepts are not comparable in any way.
We live in the United States of America. If you want things your way, I suggest you move to Europe. Might be a perfect fit.
(11-07-2020, 01:58 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 01:51 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't want easy access. We have background checks and 3 day wait periods. What more do you want? Criminals will get their hands on weapons no matter what the laws are. That is the giant misnomer, that criminals follow laws.
I am good with all that. Assault weapons would be what I would place a higher standard of regulation on. Those are a different animal regarding mass shootings. If you want one of those, there should be a higher standard. I mean, you need a license that shows basic competency to drive a car and registration that shows ownership... I'd place assault weapons in that realm. Other than that, I'm good.
The AR stands for Armalite Rifle, Assault is an action not a thing
(11-07-2020, 04:30 PM)Talented Kalamari Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 04:09 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]I would differentiate "semi-automatic" from "assault" weapons. I am an avid gun owner... but I do not want assault weapons in the hands of people that should not have them. Those should have a higher standard.
The analogy I would use is with other countries having the ability to have their own military to protect themselves. I am all for it... it should be their right. But do you want them all to have access to nuclear weapons that can have grave consequences to a massive amount of people? Absolutely not. Its the same concept with assault weapons; albeit on a very different scale, obviously. If you believe everyone should have the right to own an assault weapon, applying that same logic on a larger scale would say all countries should be able to access nuclear weapons. Same argument, larger scale.
Those two concepts are not comparable in any way.
We live in the United States of America. If you want things your way, I suggest you move to Europe. Might be a perfect fit.
They are absolutely comparable. Both weapons of mass destruction, just on different scales. Both used for attacking large numbers of people, on different scales.
How about bombs? Like the homemade kind used to murder people at the Boston marathon? Should we be able to buy or make those for self-defense? Would you be comfortable knowing some radical person had access to that, and could just leave it in a public place to detonate?
Think it out man. The right to protect yourself? Absolutely and it should be universal. But where do you draw the line between protecting yourself, and allowing others to create large scale damage to society. Its a complicated question.
(11-07-2020, 04:37 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 01:58 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]I am good with all that. Assault weapons would be what I would place a higher standard of regulation on. Those are a different animal regarding mass shootings. If you want one of those, there should be a higher standard. I mean, you need a license that shows basic competency to drive a car and registration that shows ownership... I'd place assault weapons in that realm. Other than that, I'm good.
The AR stands for Armalite Rifle, Assault is an action not a thing
Its a thing too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
(11-07-2020, 04:09 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 04:03 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]#1 Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what type of gun you own. Harris said she agreed with Beto O'Rourke's idea about going door to door and confiscating semi-automatic rifles from people, even though they were bought legally by law abiding citizens. In my book, that is stealing and that would not be tolerated. People are not gonna stand by and let the government steal their property.
I would differentiate "semi-automatic" from "assault" weapons. I am an avid gun owner... but I do not want assault weapons in the hands of people that should not have them. Those should have a higher standard.
The analogy I would use is with other countries having the ability to have their own military to protect themselves. I am all for it... it should be their right. But do you want them all to have access to nuclear weapons that can have grave consequences to a massive amount of people? Absolutely not. Its the same concept with assault weapons; albeit on a very different scale, obviously. If you believe everyone should have the right to own an assault weapon, applying that same logic on a larger scale would say all countries should be able to access nuclear weapons. Same argument, larger scale.
I would too. Unfortunately, Democrats don't. They keep calling any kind of AR, AK and several other types of semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons," which they are not. An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle which is already banned or one capable of being almost fully automatic with the addition of a bump stock. O'Rourke and Harris were referring to AR and AK type weapons which 10's of millions of people already own. Almost everyone I know in my area owns some version of a semi-automatic rifle, whether it be an AR-15 or older versions of a Russian, Romanian or Chinese AK-47's. These are all law abiding citizens with no mental deficiencies and clean arrest records, yet Harris has agreed with O'Rourke's plan to steal them from people. That is wrong. I'm all for keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill and people who have violent crimes in their backgrounds, but I will never agree with punishing everyone for the actions of a few.
There is a difference between what you are saying and what Harris says. You are saying not everyone should own a semi-automatic weapon. I agree. They should definitely be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill and people with violent past. That I fully support, but Harris thinks
NO ONE should own one of these types of weapons and I clearly disagree with this 1000%.
How many new COVID-19 cases will arise from these Biden celebration super spreader events? Asking for a friend.
(11-07-2020, 04:40 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 04:30 PM)Talented Kalamari Wrote: [ -> ]Those two concepts are not comparable in any way.
We live in the United States of America. If you want things your way, I suggest you move to Europe. Might be a perfect fit.
They are absolutely comparable. Both weapons of mass destruction, just on different scales. Both used for attacking large numbers of people, on different scales.
How about bombs? Like the homemade kind used to murder people at the Boston marathon? Should we be able to buy or make those for self-defense? Would you be comfortable knowing some radical person had access to that, and could just leave it in a public place to detonate?
Think it out man. The right to protect yourself? Absolutely and it should be universal. But where do you draw the line between protecting yourself, and allowing others to create large scale damage to society. Its a complicated question.
I've never heard of anyone buying a bomb. Most people that use them, make them. All it takes is a quick Google search. The cat is already out of the bag on that one. Everyone knows this. Once it's on the internet, there is no getting it back, so there is nothing we can do about that. Guns are a much less complicated issue. People do buy guns. Very few people make their own.
That's not my job. It's the government's job to keep crazies and violent people from acquiring semi-automatic weapons. We put them in office to try and fix these problems, but you NEVER restrict the rights of honest, law abiding citizens in order to punish the bad ones. That's not how freedom works.
(11-07-2020, 04:52 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 04:09 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]I would differentiate "semi-automatic" from "assault" weapons. I am an avid gun owner... but I do not want assault weapons in the hands of people that should not have them. Those should have a higher standard.
The analogy I would use is with other countries having the ability to have their own military to protect themselves. I am all for it... it should be their right. But do you want them all to have access to nuclear weapons that can have grave consequences to a massive amount of people? Absolutely not. Its the same concept with assault weapons; albeit on a very different scale, obviously. If you believe everyone should have the right to own an assault weapon, applying that same logic on a larger scale would say all countries should be able to access nuclear weapons. Same argument, larger scale.
I would too. Unfortunately, Democrats don't. They keep calling any kind of AR, AK and several other types of semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons," which they are not. An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle which is already banned or one capable of being almost fully automatic with the addition of a bump stock. O'Rourke and Harris were referring to AR and AK type weapons which 10's of millions of people already own. Almost everyone I know in my area owns some version of a semi-automatic rifle, whether it be an AR-15 or older versions of a Russian, Romanian or Chinese AK-47's. These are all law abiding citizens with no mental deficiencies and clean arrest records, yet Harris has agreed with O'Rourke's plan to steal them from people. That is wrong. I'm all for keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill and people who have violent crimes in their backgrounds, but I will never agree with punishing everyone for the actions of a few.
There is a difference between what you are saying and what Harris says. You are saying not everyone should own a semi-automatic weapon. I agree. They should definitely be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill and people with violent past. That I fully support, but Harris thinks NO ONE should own one of these types of weapons and I clearly disagree with this 1000%.
I am a conservative and agree with the 2nd Amendment. I do not know Kamala's position on this. But like most things in politics, compromises can be made if they are in the best interest of society.
BTW... assault weapons are not all fully automatic, by legal definitions. I know it would be messy to determine where to draw the lines, but its a conversation that is needed. US gun violence is the worst in the civilized world, and its clear that or laws are not sufficient in protecting our citizens well. Protecting the 2nd amendment is important; but technology advancements in every field require the constant reinterpretation of laws made 200+ years ago. That is just common sense, and it happens everyday in the courts.
(11-07-2020, 05:02 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 04:40 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]They are absolutely comparable. Both weapons of mass destruction, just on different scales. Both used for attacking large numbers of people, on different scales.
How about bombs? Like the homemade kind used to murder people at the Boston marathon? Should we be able to buy or make those for self-defense? Would you be comfortable knowing some radical person had access to that, and could just leave it in a public place to detonate?
Think it out man. The right to protect yourself? Absolutely and it should be universal. But where do you draw the line between protecting yourself, and allowing others to create large scale damage to society. Its a complicated question.
I've never heard of anyone buying a bomb. Most people that use them, make them. All it takes is a quick Google search. The cat is already out of the bag on that one. Everyone knows this. Once it's on the internet, there is no getting it back, so there is nothing we can do about that. Guns are a much less complicated issue. People do buy guns. Very few people make their own.
That's not my job. It's the government's job to keep crazies and violent people from acquiring semi-automatic weapons. We put them in office to try and fix these problems, but you NEVER restrict the rights of honest, law abiding citizens in order to punish the bad ones. That's not how freedom works.
That's what I'm saying. The right to bear arms does not include bombs... and it shouldn't. They are too dangerous. I believe assault weapons are too... they are above and beyond what is required for "protection" and move into military grade assault weapons designed to kill large numbers of people. Offense rather than defense.
Not having the ability to make or buy bombs is not a lack of freedom. Same with plutonium... you can't buy that either. I believe assault weapons fall in that category as well.
(11-07-2020, 05:02 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 04:52 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]I would too. Unfortunately, Democrats don't. They keep calling any kind of AR, AK and several other types of semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons," which they are not. An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle which is already banned or one capable of being almost fully automatic with the addition of a bump stock. O'Rourke and Harris were referring to AR and AK type weapons which 10's of millions of people already own. Almost everyone I know in my area owns some version of a semi-automatic rifle, whether it be an AR-15 or older versions of a Russian, Romanian or Chinese AK-47's. These are all law abiding citizens with no mental deficiencies and clean arrest records, yet Harris has agreed with O'Rourke's plan to steal them from people. That is wrong. I'm all for keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill and people who have violent crimes in their backgrounds, but I will never agree with punishing everyone for the actions of a few.
There is a difference between what you are saying and what Harris says. You are saying not everyone should own a semi-automatic weapon. I agree. They should definitely be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill and people with violent past. That I fully support, but Harris thinks NO ONE should own one of these types of weapons and I clearly disagree with this 1000%.
I am a conservative and agree with the 2nd Amendment. I do not know Kamala's position on this. But like most things in politics, compromises can be made if they are in the best interest of society.
BTW... assault weapons are not all fully automatic, by legal definitions. I know it would be messy to determine where to draw the lines, but its a conversation that is needed. US gun violence is the worst in the civilized world, and its clear that or laws are not sufficient in protecting our citizens well. Protecting the 2nd amendment is important; but technology advancements in every field require the constant reinterpretation of laws made 200+ years ago. That is just common sense, and it happens everyday in the courts.
So, what are you saying? I'm clearly stating that what Beto O'Rourke proposed and what Kamala Harris agreed with, (door to door confiscation aka stealing people's semi-automatic weapons,) will 100% lead to a civil war much bloodier than the first one. It just cannot be done without massive deaths more than any terrorists could cause using those same weapons, so Harris better find another way to solve the gun issue.
Door to door gun confiscation sounds good in a government chamber. I suggest they start on the west side of Jacksonville.
Imagine the poor law enforcement tasked with that job.
(11-07-2020, 05:02 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 04:52 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]I would too. Unfortunately, Democrats don't. They keep calling any kind of AR, AK and several other types of semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons," which they are not. An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle which is already banned or one capable of being almost fully automatic with the addition of a bump stock. O'Rourke and Harris were referring to AR and AK type weapons which 10's of millions of people already own. Almost everyone I know in my area owns some version of a semi-automatic rifle, whether it be an AR-15 or older versions of a Russian, Romanian or Chinese AK-47's. These are all law abiding citizens with no mental deficiencies and clean arrest records, yet Harris has agreed with O'Rourke's plan to steal them from people. That is wrong. I'm all for keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill and people who have violent crimes in their backgrounds, but I will never agree with punishing everyone for the actions of a few.
There is a difference between what you are saying and what Harris says. You are saying not everyone should own a semi-automatic weapon. I agree. They should definitely be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill and people with violent past. That I fully support, but Harris thinks NO ONE should own one of these types of weapons and I clearly disagree with this 1000%.
I am a conservative and agree with the 2nd Amendment. I do not know Kamala's position on this. But like most things in politics, compromises can be made if they are in the best interest of society.
BTW... assault weapons are not all fully automatic, by legal definitions. I know it would be messy to determine where to draw the lines, but its a conversation that is needed. US gun violence is the worst in the civilized world, and its clear that or laws are not sufficient in protecting our citizens well. Protecting the 2nd amendment is important; but technology advancements in every field require the constant reinterpretation of laws made 200+ years ago. That is just common sense, and it happens everyday in the courts.
(11-07-2020, 05:02 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]I've never heard of anyone buying a bomb. Most people that use them, make them. All it takes is a quick Google search. The cat is already out of the bag on that one. Everyone knows this. Once it's on the internet, there is no getting it back, so there is nothing we can do about that. Guns are a much less complicated issue. People do buy guns. Very few people make their own.
That's not my job. It's the government's job to keep crazies and violent people from acquiring semi-automatic weapons. We put them in office to try and fix these problems, but you NEVER restrict the rights of honest, law abiding citizens in order to punish the bad ones. That's not how freedom works.
That's what I'm saying. The right to bear arms does not include bombs... and it shouldn't. They are too dangerous. I believe assault weapons are too... they are above and beyond what is required for "protection" and move into military grade assault weapons designed to kill large numbers of people. Offense rather than defense.
Not having the ability to make or buy bombs is not a lack of freedom. Same with plutonium... you can't buy that either. I believe assault weapons fall in that category as well.
I don't agree. I believe they are very different entities.
(11-07-2020, 05:11 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Door to door gun confiscation sounds good in a government chamber. I suggest they start on the west side of Jacksonville.
Imagine the poor law enforcement tasked with that job.
There would be no law enforcement willing to do that. It would be a suicide mission.
Imagine a modern day civil war. Imagine Washington inflicilting the full power of our tax payer funded military on its citizens. Imagine fighter jets bombing hot zones of gun holders refusing to give up their weapons. Imagine our enemies abroad taking advantage of this situation and attacking us at the same time.
(11-07-2020, 05:17 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine a modern day civil war. Imagine Washington inflicilting the full power of our tax payer funded military on its citizens. Imagine fighter jets bombing hot zones of gun holders refusing to give up their weapons. Imagine our enemies abroad taking advantage of this situation and attacking us at the same time.
We may not have to imagine it. It could be on the horizon, but I cannot imagine any law enforcement in the United States whether it be cops, military or whatever losing all their own morals in order kill and injure law abiding American citizens over an unjust law. I know that happens in other nations, but I'd like to think America is more civilized and compassionate than that.
Spreader event...
https://twitter.com/aginnt/status/132518...09696?s=19
(11-07-2020, 05:23 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 05:17 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine a modern day civil war. Imagine Washington inflicilting the full power of our tax payer funded military on its citizens. Imagine fighter jets bombing hot zones of gun holders refusing to give up their weapons. Imagine our enemies abroad taking advantage of this situation and attacking us at the same time.
We may not have to imagine it. It could be on the horizon, but I cannot imagine any law enforcement in the United States whether it be cops, military or whatever losing all their own morals in order kill and injure law abiding American citizens over an unjust law. I know that happens in other nations, but I'd like to think America is more civilized and compassionate than that.
Right now it is, but think about 2 generations down the road when your modern day liberals son becomes law enforcement...
How ironic will it be when these super spreader Biden celebration events are the culprit for locking down the country?
(11-07-2020, 05:11 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Door to door gun confiscation sounds good in a government chamber. I suggest they start on the west side of Jacksonville.
Imagine the poor law enforcement tasked with that job.
That would never happen. Returns would be voluntary and legislation be directed at with stopping sales of assault rifles, and simultaneously dramatic increases in legal penalties for those caught with them in their possession... particularly in criminal situations.
(11-07-2020, 05:39 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 05:11 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Door to door gun confiscation sounds good in a government chamber. I suggest they start on the west side of Jacksonville.
Imagine the poor law enforcement tasked with that job.
That would never happen. Returns would be voluntary and legislation be directed at with stopping sales of assault rifles and dramatically increasing penalties for those caught with them in criminal behavior.
I take them at their word on this one.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/...index.html
(11-07-2020, 05:41 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2020, 05:39 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]That would never happen. Returns would be voluntary and legislation be directed at with stopping sales of assault rifles and dramatically increasing penalties for those caught with them in criminal behavior.
I take them at their word on this one.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/...index.html
Theoretical-political rhetoric and practical-legal implementation never match. You seem like a smart guy who knows this.