Trump Thread 2.0

[parkerbink]

You don't say? Huh.

You're back to this bullshit?

[roznic]

still looking for obamski page on here???????????????

[z31maniac]

You're back to this bullshit?

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.

[saucers]

Iran nuclear deal, bad.
Saudi nuclear deal, good?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-nuclear/us-approved-secret-nuclear-power-work-for-saudi-arabia-idUSKCN1R82MG

[z31maniac]

Iran nuclear deal, bad.
Saudi nuclear deal, good?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1R82MG

15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.

Invade Afghanistan and then Iraq.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[R3Z3N]

jesus christ why do i have to keep saying this to people around here

tell us why the bump stock ban is unconstitutional, rather than just saying it and expecting us to take it at face value

how fucking lazy are you

Go ahead and read shall not infringe again. Call me lazy, but you are calling the kettle black by not even attempting to know the 2A wording at its basics. Also, the bump stock does not fit the NFA definition, yet now it does, but it doesn't at the same time even with the rewording to fit this circus. Yet still telling a citizen they cannot own it infringes on their right to own it....

You go ahead and forget your own rights because only some of them fit your desires.

Go ahead. Read the 2A again. It is very clear. Shall not infringe allows us to own any military weapon for our own protection of self and country.

[z31maniac]

Go ahead and read shall not infringe again. Call me lazy, but you are calling the kettle black by not even attempting to know the 2A wording at its basics. Also, the bump stock does not fit the NFA definition, yet now it does, but it doesn't at the same time even with the rewording to fit this circus. Yet still telling a citizen they cannot own it infringes on their right to own it....

You go ahead and forget your own rights because only some of them fit your desires.

Go ahead. Read the 2A again. It is very clear. Shall not infringe allows us to own any military weapon for our own protection of self and country.

Sure, as soon as you guys stop ignoring the "well regulated Militia" part.

[R3Z3N]

Sure, as soon as you guys stop ignoring the "well regulated Militia" part.

Which is any state citizen.

[mbonder]

That's a very limited view of the Second Amendment. It says for a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The government (and then the courts) have to decide what is considered "arms" for public ownership. Let's take your reasoning to its logical conclusion. Specifically because the Framers didn't ban a weapon in the Constitution that means that they should all be allowed. This would mean that citizens are allowed to own tanks, rockets, bombs, battleships, military aircraft, etc, because technically they are all weapons (or arms in the Amendment) and the Framers didn't specifically ban them, so then they must be allowed.

The courts have specifically upheld the Congress's right to determine what rationally constitutes a proper infringement or an improper infringement of the rights laid out in the Constitution. Just as your right to Freedom of Speech has been limited by Congress and the Judiciary, your right to own weapons can also be infringed based on what the government believes is rational for the safety of the people of the country.

If Congress believes that bump stocks are a proper infringement of the right to bear arms, and the courts uphold that decision, then that is a legal act of the government and your only action would be to vote someone else into the government to change the law. Creating a law against bump stocks ISN'T an infringement against the Second Amendment unless the Supreme Court determines that Congress has overstepped, so your comment is irrelevant until that happens. Your interpretation doesn't matter, the court's does.

You keep telling Decay to learn how to read, yet you appear to lack an understanding of how the government works, how the Constitution is set up for the different branches to determine what is and what is not Constitutional. Your citizen's opinion has nothing to do with it, stop attacking people for pointing this out.

[decay]

Go ahead and read shall not infringe again. Call me lazy, but you are calling the kettle black by not even attempting to know the 2A wording at its basics. Also, the bump stock does not fit the NFA definition, yet now it does, but it doesn't at the same time even with the rewording to fit this circus. Yet still telling a citizen they cannot own it infringes on their right to own it....

You go ahead and forget your own rights because only some of them fit your desires.

Go ahead. Read the 2A again. It is very clear. Shall not infringe allows us to own any military weapon for our own protection of self and country.

the second amendment was written when muzzle-loading was the best technology the military had.

you are aware that i've got an honorable discharge from the army, right?

i'm familiar with the hardware the military gets to play with because i got to play with it.

you're an untrained civilian, and even if you were allowed to keep an M240B at home, the idea that you'd be able to use it effectively against any threat is masturbatory fantasy.

but yeah. let's keep having mass-casualty events every few weeks so you can keep jacking off to the idea of protecting your 1-bed 1-bath apartment in socal from... MS13 or whatever.

[z31maniac]

the second amendment was written when muzzle-loading was the best technology the military had.

The only reason I don't think this is a good defense of the 2A is because it's also easy to say the following about the 1A:

"They didn't have widespread news coverage, 24 hour news networks, YouTube, Social Media, etc."

Especially the way Twitter, YouTube, and other social media (and purposefully misleading sites) can spread false information in a way that seems to be true.

[decay]

The only reason I don't think this is a good defense of the 2A is because it's also easy to say the following about the 1A:

"They didn't have widespread news coverage, 24 hour news networks, YouTube, Social Media, etc."

Especially the way Twitter, YouTube, and other social media (and purposefully misleading sites) can spread false information in a way that seems to be true.

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

[mrsleeve]

Sure, as soon as you guys stop ignoring the "well regulated Militia" part.

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.

the militia and shall not be infringed.

The feds define all able bodied men 17-45 and not in the military and former military up to age 64 as part of the Militia. There for if shit hits the fan an organization is called every one in that demographic is expected to show up "Bearing ARMS" You must provide your own weapons. And since you have been called up it would not be a good Idea to show up with a fucking musket when the forces you will be facing have modern weaponry to the time. This is why its implied that we have the ability to own what ever is available to the modern foot solider, as during the revolution, the Patriots had arguably better arms than did the British, Rifles in many cases vs the brits and their smooth bore muskets.

Now as to the "regulated" part. This does not mean you go out a play army in the woods of southern MI with your buddies on the week end. Regulated in the instance of the 2a, as written means disciplined in the use of your own arms, or proficient
and know how to use them. ( Regulate 3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <IE regulate the pressure of a tire> - Websters)

So to close "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Means that Personal gun owner ship is necessary right for with out it there would be no Militia at all, and you argue that a Militia is NECESSARY to a free state so there for personal gun ownership is necessary to the security of a free state right. These provisions go hand in hand for with out one there would not be the other and Vice Versa.



Both historicity and constitutionally the militia argument both you and the common sense gun control factions are trying to use to quantify the 2a holds no water what so ever, Please Stop it.

the second amendment was written when muzzle-loading was the best technology the military had.

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!!!!

HUMMM makes one contemplate what the founders really meant by that shall not be infringed thing huh. that maybe since "Civilians had better infantry weapons than the most powerful militarily in the world at the time" maybe they should continue to keep that right to counter any threats to their liberty.

Hence why they are of greater significance laying in peace in safes and closets widely decimated in private hands than they are if ever taken up.

you are aware that i've got an honorable discharge from the army, right?

Yes, what does that have to do with anything??

i'm familiar with the hardware the military gets to play with because i got to play with it.

Good for you, your no different than the several million military veterans out there. Again what does that have to do with anything.

you're an untrained civilian, and even if you were allowed to keep an M240B at home, the idea that you'd be able to use it effectively against any threat is masturbatory fantasy.

Your making assumptions again there are many M240s on the NFA rolls and in private hands, as well as many other things that chew through 7.62x51 at rates exceeding several 1000 rounds a min. In fact about twice as year Knob Creek Gun Range in KY has a couple of days dedicated to these types of weapons and most anyone can pay their fee and get some training on the weapon(s) on the rental list and shoot them at things down range. I have never attended this event but I am very lucky with some of my acquaintances that have lots of disposable income and dealers/manufactures licenses

but yeah. let's keep having mass-casualty events every few weeks so you can keep jacking off to the idea of protecting your 1-bed 1-bath apartment in socal from... MS13 or whatever.

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

[R3Z3N]

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.

[mbonder]

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

Having trouble trying to decipher what you're saying.