Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Thread 2.0

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by decay View Post
    technology, whether we're talking about military, industrial, automotive, internet, whatever- is not going to stop evolving

    it's fucking retarded to cling to ideas that were appropriate to manage society 200 years ago when we are living in a completely different environment now, and attempting to apply those laws to the level of weapons technology we have now is stupid

    you do not need a bump stock for home defense. you don't. and if you'd ever actually fired one, you'd know that it's a device that turns a functional assault rifle that i can qualify expert with into a "spray and pray" area-effect weapon

    unless your intent is to empty magazines into a large crowd, like the vegas shooter, you don't need one
    You have a short term memory. We won our country with the latest and greatest fielded by citizens. Our founding fathers also knew that firearms evolve. They had repeating rifles at the time, but turned down the contract. Everyone was looking for faster and more reliable, and still do. However the latest evolution has not been rifles, but the semi-auto handgun.

    Our founding fathers also have many statements regarding the common man training often, so that they may be prepared either for country or for self.

    Again the 2A has nothing about need. It's a right that comes before all government laws.

    My CA laws that infringe on my rights do not have to apply to me, as they already infringe on my, what is that? Yes a damn RIGHT! If my neighbor or even I get raided for what we own, I will be there fighting with my life, because I refuse to let my right die by court arbitration. The courts have infringed, and keep taking a slice of my "rights" cake day by day.

    Your service, while I thank you for it bears no relevance to the argument. You also swore to uphold the constitution, but you also are great at taking orders, not necessarily thinking for yourself as you also try to convince yourself that your constitution is different than mine because of your service.

    Give them up, be a subject of the state like the NZs and EU. Enjoy your false security while the criminals and terrorists take our lives.

    Our countries problem is thinking the governments can stop things with laws. Why do you insist laws governing violence are effective for the violent? Do you need to be reminded every "mass murder" that our government failed yet again, because no law stopped a single one. Yet the citizens already on location can. With force. Violence begets violence, sadly, but in the moment it is the most effective defense, which is legal, luckily in the USA. At least we are not the EU where protecting ones life might end with you in prison, but we have already started down that sad path.At a minimum the democrats will try to bankrupt you. At least Gabby Giffords group is good at bankrupting those she sided with.
    Last edited by R3Z3N; 03-28-2019, 07:22 PM.

    Comment


      So we should have no laws? Are you advocating for anarchy?

      Having trouble trying to decipher what you're saying.

      Comment


        Originally posted by R3Z3N View Post
        Give them up, be a subject of the state like the NZs and EU. Enjoy your false security while the criminals and terrorists take our lives.
        well, they're already doing that, and they're enabled by access to this weapons technology, dipshit. is cause and effect a foreign concept to you?
        past:
        1989 325is (learner shitbox)
        1986 325e (turbo dorito)
        1991 318ic (5-lug ITB)
        current:
        1985 323i baur (project to resume soon...)
        2013 ninja 300 (way more fun than a car)

        Comment


          Originally posted by decay View Post
          well, they're already doing that, and they're enabled by access to this weapons technology, dipshit. is cause and effect a foreign concept to you?
          The tool, nor its accessibility cause harm nor equate to misuse alone. Last I checked inanimate object is inanimate.


          Simply put mere access to firearms (of any type) alone is NOT A CAUSE AND EFFECT relationship in cases of misuse

          But you are smart enough to know this already
          Last edited by mrsleeve; 03-29-2019, 02:05 PM.
          Originally posted by Fusion
          If a car is the epitome of freedom, than an electric car is house arrest with your wife titty fucking your next door neighbor.
          The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -Alexis de Tocqueville


          The Desire to Save Humanity is Always a False Front for the Urge to Rule it- H. L. Mencken

          Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
          William Pitt-

          Comment


            Originally posted by decay View Post
            well, they're already doing that, and they're enabled by access to this weapons technology, dipshit. is cause and effect a foreign concept to you?
            And yet you still want protection by who? The government that failed everyone. You will never uninvent the firearm or knife.

            As mrsleeve stated, the tool is not the problem, it is not cause and effect. Because the tool exists does not mean it is good or bad. It just is. It is up to the user, and the law can only prosecute the user of that tool. The law still did not protect anyone. The guns that were not used did neither good nor bad. One gentleman in NZ did use a shotgun to protect himself. I applaud him for taking his defense into his own hands.

            Being that you served, I question your ability to comprehend trying to disarm those you may have fought, thinking that you also may give up your own guns because "we live in society" You may bring the war to a minimum death toll, but the fringes will still attack, and you have no way to defend yourself. Unless you think only LEOs and government should be armed, but with a discharge, you should be at civilian status as you no longer serve. So protect yourself with your 911 call (with help arriving ~13min later) should the terrible ever happen, but anyone that loves their freedom will be armed ready for the wolf.
            Last edited by R3Z3N; 03-29-2019, 02:11 PM.

            Comment


              Ahhh the 2A debate... I think it's on a 3 or 4 month cycle. I support 2A but I am not a fanatic like R3Z3N. If everyone in the country were armed... crime would still happen. Some of it would be stopped... most of it wouldn't. Just like today. Never understood that argument. I think 2A supporters go completely overboard with the idea that a significant amount of crime would be stopped if we were all armed and carrying which causes a loss of credibility. You're completely right R3Z3N, criminals will arm themselves regardless of the law. The gun did not ask to be misused, it is not evil.

              I certainly wouldn't support any politician wanting to ban firearms. Now, background checks I have less of an issue with. I am also not a huge supporter of gun caches. But probably mostly because I am not a gun enthusiast or hobbyist. I don't vote based on that issue though... so don't jump down my throat about it. ;)
              "A good memory for quotes combined with a poor memory for attribution can lead to a false sense of originality."
              -----------------------------------------
              91 318is Turbo Sold
              87 325 Daily driver Sold
              06 4.8is X5
              06 Mtec X3
              05 4.4i X5 Sold
              92 325ic Sold & Re-purchased
              90 325i Sold
              97 328is Sold
              01 323ci Sold
              92 325i Sold
              83 528e Totaled
              98 328i Sold
              93 325i Sold

              Comment


                Originally posted by R3Z3N View Post
                you have no way to defend yourself.
                i have a SAPI plate carrier that's rated for 7.62, and i prefer edged to projectile weapons if we're talking about a distance less than 5 meters. inside that radius i'm pulling a knife.

                you think i have no way to defend myself because a gun is the only thing you know how to use.
                past:
                1989 325is (learner shitbox)
                1986 325e (turbo dorito)
                1991 318ic (5-lug ITB)
                current:
                1985 323i baur (project to resume soon...)
                2013 ninja 300 (way more fun than a car)

                Comment


                  Originally posted by z31maniac View Post
                  Pointing out your hypocrisy? Sure.

                  I asked for specific examples and sources to back it up instead of "gross rationalizations."

                  I'm sorry. I'm confused as to why it's OK for you to do it, but no one else.



                  What are you rambling about?

                  [IMG]https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/my350z.com-vbulletin/550x225/80-parkerbsig_5096690e71d912ec1addc4a84e99c374685fc03 8.jpg[/IMG

                  Comment


                    Are we just going to pass over the fact that it appears as though R3Z3N wants to defend the Constitution at all cost while in the same sentence saying that laws are useless? Am I the only one that sees the ridiculousness here of arguing that laws don't protect people while also saying that the laws for gun ownership are sacrosanct?

                    Comment


                      what hes alluding to is that the US Constitution is the highest law in the land and that when one of the individual states passes legislation that is counter to that, that legislation carries no force of law. Hes not wrong from a principals stand point, yet in practice its not as clear or cut and dry.

                      Laws dont protect people........

                      "The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons" ; Cesare Beccaria
                      Crimes and Punishment 1764. Translated from the original Italian by Thomas Jefferson
                      Originally posted by Fusion
                      If a car is the epitome of freedom, than an electric car is house arrest with your wife titty fucking your next door neighbor.
                      The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -Alexis de Tocqueville


                      The Desire to Save Humanity is Always a False Front for the Urge to Rule it- H. L. Mencken

                      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
                      William Pitt-

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by decay View Post
                        i have a SAPI plate carrier that's rated for 7.62, and i prefer edged to projectile weapons if we're talking about a distance less than 5 meters. inside that radius i'm pulling a knife.

                        you think i have no way to defend myself because a gun is the only thing you know how to use.
                        Good. In CA where I live, that plate carrier is a felony. I doubt you daily around with it, but if you do, I pray for your back and shoulders

                        There are laws such in NY that the size of the blade you defend yourself with may make you also a felon. IE if it is longer than the palm of your hand. It's complete ridiculousness.

                        I believe you can try to defend yourself, and a knife is a very good tool as some of the mass murderers in China have demonstrated. Let's go the English way and disarm you. Because a sharp stick can cause others harm, non one but the police should have them /sarcastic

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by mbonder View Post
                          Are we just going to pass over the fact that it appears as though R3Z3N wants to defend the Constitution at all cost while in the same sentence saying that laws are useless? Am I the only one that sees the ridiculousness here of arguing that laws don't protect people while also saying that the laws for gun ownership are sacrosanct?
                          Sigh. You really don't understand the Bill of Rights do you? They are rights that no law should step on. They are inalienable, such that if the government steps on them, you have every right to ignore said law. However good luck getting past the treasonous judges and lawmakers that passed such laws. Hence the 2A. Once we get pushed over the edge, IE if God forbid our government starst killing religious groups, or banning speech, or implementing socialist ideologies. The reverse is also true, if groups like KKK or Gangs start attacking, you don't have to rely on the government for protection, or you can help the government get rid of the domestic threat.
                          Last edited by R3Z3N; 03-30-2019, 09:38 AM.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by R3Z3N View Post
                            Good. In CA where I live, that plate carrier is a felony. I doubt you daily around with it, but if you do, I pray for your back and shoulders
                            i am also in california and no it isn't. you're not allowed to *have* one if you're a felon, but i'm not. (also, a plate carrier is about 30lbs of a total 100lb ruck march load...)

                            i know this because i have worn it in public, while trail-hiking with the police officer i used to date. she had no qualms about telling me what she could potentially arrest me on just to mess with me, but she was mostly just grumpy that my SAPIs are better than what her department issued her.
                            past:
                            1989 325is (learner shitbox)
                            1986 325e (turbo dorito)
                            1991 318ic (5-lug ITB)
                            current:
                            1985 323i baur (project to resume soon...)
                            2013 ninja 300 (way more fun than a car)

                            Comment


                              he can defend his dwelling with in the limits of the laws imposed on him by the state in which he lives, that being CA you both are somewhat limited in what you can use and how much you can use it with in the narrow guidelines in which your state has deemed worthy of defending ones own life. but that is a topic for another day
                              So the states can "infringe" on guns. I thought that "shall not" happen.

                              Jesus why do I have to keep repeating my self on this. The 2A dose not mean you get to have battleships, and Hellfire's and Attack Gunships, and armed nuke capable b52s its about weapons fielded by the GI, average rifleman and what those equivalents may be.
                              Cool, then by your own admission you don't need military style weapons. Such as Ar's and the like. As that's not what your average citizen has. Remember in the context of the constitution there is no GI, or rifleman. Just citizens.

                              And the peasant farmers and fur-trading colonists, that ran off the red coats and started the fall of the British empire, had......... Say it with me NOW............ RIFLES!!! A superior firearm Technology than the British army's smooth bore muskets, and where did they get them from??? Oh yeah thats right the firearms manufacturers of the day!!!!
                              Not entirely true. They didn't have "rifles", they had muzzle loading muskets with rifled barrels. The British used muzzle loading muskets with smooth bore barrels. The only difference being the rifled barrel, which aided only in accuracy. Not in loading speed. The British actually had the more advanced tech in the form of the Ferguson rifle. Considered to be the first production breach loading rifle. Aiding both accuracy and reload speed. The British lost largely to tactics rather than tech. As most tech was coming out of Europe, not america.

                              Good for you, your no different than the several million military veterans out there. Again what does that have to do with anything
                              Wow, just wow. At least he earned his rights by serving. What did you do to earn yours? Other than being born in america.

                              I'll agree guns are just tools. So why are you guys so upset about losing one tool? You still get all the others, they don't want to ban all tools. Your basically throwing a temper tantrum that the government wants to take away your toy. It's sad really.

                              The thing i don't ever see mentioned is that none of you guys have any training, yet assume your going be Rambo. Unless your going threw tactical training, marksmanship, situational awareness, stress training, ect.. on a near daily basis none of you would be considered proficient with a firearm. It's delusional at best, dangerous at worst. My theory is most of you would freeze out of fear, cause most of you never have to deal with high stress situations on a regular basis. Hell, how many of you have even been in a real fist fight? Soldiers freeze up, yet somehow you guys with zero training, zero experience in life or death situations, are somehow gonna react perfectly. Sure.

                              I'm all for gun ownership, but I'm against bullshit excuses or using the constitution as a shield. If you want guns cause they're cool, or cause you feel scared without it, or you like to collect them, or cause you have a tiny dick and a gun makes you feel manlier, cool. Just be a man and say that. Stop hiding behind bullshit.

                              Look, america does have a gun issue, a mass/school shooting issue. There's no denying it. The question is what are you going to do to fix it? The answer from the right is hopes and prayers, from the left is policy. And I've never known hopes and prayers to change things.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by CarpHunter View Post
                                So why are you guys so upset about losing one tool?
                                Why are you so adamant at controlling one tool? The attempt to control or ban one particular designation of firearm is an appeal to emotion and ignorance, it gives the false impression of protecting lives when they are in fact seldom used in terms of scale for criminal purposes. I used to be on your side of the fence, you can probably go back in my post history and look up my blatant ignorance when it came to firearms and AR's, and being in favor of their strict control. There is zero rationale behind banning the platform beyond appeasing those who's worse experience with one has been hearing about them on the news.

                                As a Canadian I have access to, and have owned both AR-15's as well as several other semi-auto's with all the same scary features that people want to see banned. Some were restricted (registered serial number and enhanced storage requirements), others were treated the same as a bolt-action hunting rifle and I could go freely almost anywhere legally. Point being the ability to extend a buttstock, hold by a pistol grip or reload via detachable magazines has zero bearing whether or not they were going to contribute to increasing the amount of firearm related crime in my country. Your nations issues have nothing to do with types of firearms and everything to do with attitudes towards guns in general.
                                Last edited by cale; 03-30-2019, 02:24 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X