|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 19, 2019, 06:41 AM | #51 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
2)nope and maybe not DJT either. Quote:
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
||
October 19, 2019, 12:00 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
Unless they are lying.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
October 20, 2019, 06:57 AM | #53 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|||||
October 20, 2019, 07:30 AM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
I still recall wondering why Fox News could call the 2008 election for Obama - a couple hours before the polls closed. If I'm not mistaken, that's illegal - but - I sat in astonishment over that going down. |
|
October 20, 2019, 08:23 AM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2018
Posts: 218
|
Quote:
And I wish they would be more clear on what they consider so called Mental Health in their polls. Is it mentally ill, who are usually victimized. Or is it the evil wastes of life that plan rehearse and execute their successful attacks because they are pissed off about something. Mental illness is a cop out category. Evil is what these people are... but politicians use other labels that they use in their sound bytes for better effect... with the only goal of pitting American against American and not solving anything. |
|
October 20, 2019, 02:42 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2008
Posts: 3,224
|
This is why gun owners should not be blindly supportive of any one political party. Don't let anyone else own your vote. In Washington they are serving ice cream. You can have Chocolate or Vanilla. You can ask for Cherry Pie, but they are only serving up ice cream.
|
October 20, 2019, 04:20 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLROTFLOL - I can't believe you fell for that one. If you watch the whole video and find out what bill is actually under discussion you might be surprised. Since clearly you did not I will give you a clue.
They clip it out of the video... but you can almost hear it... https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-di...t-weapons-ban/
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
October 21, 2019, 05:24 AM | #58 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
And Bloomberg is certainly making sure that nobody who aspires to leadership in the Dem party is going to be anything but anti-2A. |
|
October 21, 2019, 06:41 AM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
As for quotes above, I DID watch the video and it just shows how TV moments frame 'policy', and how that 'policy' disappears once the cameras are off. BUT, once again..'some' are all twisted about some minor candidate's statements on a DEM 'debate' stage, with the election 13 months away while other 'candidate's' make similar statements, who happen to be on the other side of the isle and it's 'so what, he doesn't mean it'...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” Last edited by USNRet93; October 21, 2019 at 06:50 AM. |
|
October 21, 2019, 08:09 AM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
October 21, 2019, 08:26 AM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
While you can pull quotes of DJT making some statements apparently supportive of substantial additional firearms restrictions, one can also pull many DJT quotes that support a very hard line on 2d Am. rights. That's a comment on DJT's mode of communication rather than the policy of the last 3 years. Where is that variability in the communication of putative democrat and socialist presidential candidates? It isn't there. That's the point. While repub candidates may be wobbly about 2d Am. rights depending on time and audience, the putative dems are not. The range of acceptable policy within viable democrat nominees does not extend to recognition of a robust right. Congressionally, in 1994 each party had some outliers voting contrary to pattern for and against the 1994 AWB. A quarter century later, the continued legal recognition of the right rests in part on Sup Court justice recognizing the 2d Am and conceding that Heller was correctly decided, and Senate dems are conspicuous in their opposition to that effort. The insinuation that at a national level the parties are the same on this issue is false. That doesn't mean that weakness on the issue from repubs should escape critique. The reasoning behind NFA coverage of bumpstocks doesn't pass a laugh test. Mike Dewine, Ohio's repub governor, proposed a red flag law that had all the problems of other laws written about here, but he was deterred by a General Assembly that wasn't interested in adopting those problems into state code. The better remedy to repubs [and dems] behaving poorly is to oppose them when they behave poorly, not to suggest a false equivalence.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
October 21, 2019, 09:52 AM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
The biggest weaknesses on Trump are private party sales and the age of majority for firearms.
Private party sales without a background check are probably going to die no matter what we do. I will note that the NRA was for it before they were against it. The age of majority thing is getting weird in American Society. It is all over the map from allowing 18+ to ship off to war while not allowing them to drink alcohol to some states not allowing them to carry pistols. The DOD will never surrender on the 18 being allowed to join though. If it ever changed to 21 they would never have enough manpower ever again, short of a draft.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
October 21, 2019, 10:47 AM | #63 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
October 21, 2019, 10:55 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,766
|
Yes I agree and thanks zukiphile.
The 2013 AWB yes vote was 38 democrats and only 1 republican with that republican losing his re election bid after that vote. I see a definite trend here. Obama wanted that bill passed badly and definitely would have signed it. President Trump fought hard for his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh also and one of the big issues the democrats had with Brett Kavanaugh was that he supported ownership by citizens of AR-15 style rifles as demonstrated by his grilling by gun hating democrat Diane Feinstein and a previous dissenting opinion in 2011 he stated on a case involving them on the district court he was on. https://www.nationalreview.com/bench...nt-gun-rights/
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin Last edited by sigarms228; October 21, 2019 at 11:07 AM. |
October 21, 2019, 12:46 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2018
Posts: 218
|
Quote:
MEANWHILE, you apparently are falling for straight up made up fake news even when they are politely spelling it out for you. I'm not saying I get everything right all the time, but if I was quoting and pushing a fake story and someone proved to me it was phony, I would thank them for setting me straight. |
|
October 21, 2019, 03:15 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
Leftist media is intentionally peddling false information as fact. I know about a great many subjects. Over time, the media has lied about things in which I’m an expert, some of it is on guns, but guns are the least of my interests and expertise. Leftist media has made even larger lies about fields in which I have a much higher level of knowledge than guns.
I recognize propaganda driven journalism, they taught us how to spot it in K-12 school. If they intentionally lie and mislead the public on things in which I am knowledgeable, I must assume the leftist media is lying about the things in which I am ignorant. I don’t get that from right winger media, right media has a bias and slant... I see their bias as well, they all have a slant. There’s a huge problem in this country. The sheeple actually believes the leftists media lies now as fact. Leftist media and politicians have become dangerous to the country. |
October 22, 2019, 07:35 AM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|
October 22, 2019, 08:40 AM | #68 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
||
October 23, 2019, 07:41 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
That's a personal decision. My point again, is that ALL these statements spell trouble, regardless of where/which side they come from. MY point is that 'some' are all fussed about a minor candidate's statements on a debate stage but those same people are unconcerned by statements by those actually in position of governing power.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
October 23, 2019, 08:17 AM | #70 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why would you treat consistent support for 2d Am. erosion amongst democrat and socialist candidates as equivalent to DJT's equivocation? I've tried to explain this gently enough to not get any noses out of joint in the past. There are all sorts of social and political reasons an individual may identify as a republican or democrat. Once one's location even may have driven party affiliation. Those reasons have been a declining influence on affiliation in most subpopulations in the US. For about four decades, affiliations have been more influence by ideology. Increasingly, the dem ideology has been focused on reduction or erasure of the consequence or existence social and economic differences, and using government power toward that end. That ideology will see traditional constitutional constraints on exercise of that power as an obstacle. This shows up in judicial philosophy as a disregard for constitutional restraints on power. The text of the 2d Am. is waved away with admonitions about what the founding fathers foresaw, and how society has changed. Popularly something similar happens with the 1st Am. An individual can be a democrat and a fierce gun rights advocate. However, that is a heterodox position, not in sync with the leadership at a national level, and one that does not cohere or align well ideologically. Many people who identify with either major party will hold a heterodox position, or several. That isn't unusual. You appear to have concluded that people who note these differences can do so only out of partisan bias. You are getting some push back from people who observe that although DJT and repubs may not be reliable on this issue, the dems and socialists under discussion are reliable, but in the wrong direction. I hope I've set this out in a manner that makes sense and seems fair to you.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; October 23, 2019 at 11:13 AM. |
|||
October 23, 2019, 10:35 AM | #71 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
Bartholomew Roberts
Quote:
Quote:
As fond as I am of the 2nd amendment, I'm not willing to let everything burn because of that one issue. Neither party is doing us any favors and they both screw us in different ways. It's just a matter of how much and to what degree at this time. I'm not going to always vote republican over guns when I think they are screwing us harder on something else. Nor am I going to vote democrat when it's true for them. Last edited by NJgunowner; October 23, 2019 at 10:52 AM. |
||
October 23, 2019, 11:11 AM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
I don't see observing the animosity toward a civil right as a farce or a "full on political discussion". While I don't entirely disagree with your wider political argument, that doesn't mean the thread reflects your comment. If you have a passion for the other issues you mention and it would drive you to support election of officeholders with less regard for 2d Am. rights, I can see why you would view that general tension with dissatisfaction. Should that mean the positions of aspiring officeholders are off limits?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
October 23, 2019, 11:29 AM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
Quote:
When an actual bill is proposed, drag it back over here. |
|
October 23, 2019, 11:44 AM | #74 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||
October 23, 2019, 12:35 PM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
Quote:
Right now you have politicians stating a stance on a subject. That in and of itself is NOT a law or civil rights issue. That's just free speech, they can believe what they want. IF one gets elected and starts trying to change the law and impose on those rights, THEN we have something to talk about here. The NRA rumbled at DJT because he's POTUS, not because he's joe guy on the street. This whole thread is about the fitness of political CANDIDATES who have a stance we dislike. And to finish it off in a way to make it VERY clear. When you're discussing candidates and their stances and whether you agree and who you want to vote for... that's politics. It's their actions AFTER they get elected that should determine if it ends up here. There used to be a section called "Legal and Political" for this type of discussion. I think it was archived off for the slippery and dividing slope it caused. Last edited by NJgunowner; October 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM. |
|
|
|