2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[Pete Schweddy]

Because it's fun to send lead downrange rapidly. Canada is instituting a lot of new gun bans, so maybe those uncomfortable with "assault rifles" should move there.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by Joan p

He crushed me again? Are you actually keeping score?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am . And it ' s not looking good for you .

[techtre2003]

Originally Posted by marl1220

First off, I never said I wanted to take away your guns. I asked the purpose of owning a semiautomatic/automatic weapon. And I agree with the car analogy. Why make a car that can go that fast when it's not legal to go that fast? I'm sure I'll get plenty of blow back on that as well. But the other comparisons don't hold water. Last time I knew it wasn't possible to kill a room of people with a cell phone, TV, or sports cards.

My apologies, I wasn't trying to say you personally; that was a general "you".

A cell phone won't kill a room full of people but if I had to guess I'd say distracted driving is in the top 3 for causes of car vehicle accidents and cell phones contribute to that. My point though is that most of the things we have we don't need; they are luxuries. If you don't like or own guns that's fine. But I do like them. My guns have killed zero people. The only way I'd ever shoot someone is in a life threatening situation. And IF that ever happened (I highly doubt it will) I would be doing so with a handgun outside the house and a shotgun inside the house. My AR-15 is for fun; it's a hobby. Again, you have a small handful of nutjobs using them to go on kill sprees so you take them away from millions of law-abiding citizens?

[discostu]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Tara Reade, Lucy Flores, Amy Lappos, Vail Kohnert-Yount, Caitlyn Caruso, D.J. Hill, Sofie Karasek, Ally Coll, Eva Murry

The list is getting longer. Moral high-ground is getting lower by the day.

Curiously only one of them mentioned sexual assault...in her third, evolving iteration of the incident.

At the end, you're smarter than this, so this is clearly calculated. Equating these women in a singular list is disingenuous.

You know there are clear differences between someone's uncomfortable actions as a legacy from a bygone era and predatory sexual assault.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by discostu

Curiously only one of them mentioned sexual assault...in her third, evolving iteration of the incident.

At the end, you're smarter than this, so this is clearly calculated. Equating these women in a singular list is disingenuous.

You know there are clear differences between someone's uncomfortable actions as a legacy from a bygone era and predatory sexual assault.

So you're dismissing all of THESE claims. Noted.

[chezball]

Originally Posted by Whodatiz

Avoiding a second wave is inevitable. Healthcare workers are being laid off/furloughed now.

Keeping everyone sheltered in will do nothing but make them more susceptible to getting sick & showing symptoms in the long run.

I don't understand what makes it so difficult to grasp this idea? Our bodies need exposure to the various bacteria/viruses/antigens in order to build stronger immune systems.

As that video I dropped with the two docs from cali saying what is in bold, that YouTube took down. If you can't see the censorship of conservatives I really can't spell it out for you. It's right in front of you if you chose to see it.

[chezball]

Originally Posted by CC_123

Minnesota has had more deaths by suicide (near 800) during this shutdown than we have had from COVID. I'm sure we aren't the only state that has had this issue either.

I stated that would happen in the CV thread.

[Joan p]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

My apologies, I wasn't trying to say you personally; that was a general "you".

A cell phone won't kill a room full of people but if I had to guess I'd say distracted driving is in the top 3 for causes of car vehicle accidents and cell phones contribute to that. My point though is that most of the things we have we don't need; they are luxuries. If you don't like or own guns that's fine. But I do like them. My guns have killed zero people. The only way I'd ever shoot someone is in a life threatening situation. And IF that ever happened (I highly doubt it will) I would be doing so with a handgun outside the house and a shotgun inside the house. My AR-15 is for fun; it's a hobby. Again, you have a small handful of nutjobs using them to go on kill sprees so you take them away from millions of law-abiding citizens?

You wouldn’t gladly give up your hobby of own and shooting an AR -15 to avoid the next Sandy Hook?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[discostu]

Originally Posted by cnewby

So you're dismissing all of THESE claims. Noted.

Dismissing?

Hardly.

Not even Biden dismisses them. The only incident that Biden has dismissed is Tara Reade...the glaring outlier in every "Creepy Joe" story.

The Tara Reade story, Biden even advised going to the National Archives to find the Tara Reade personnel report which would have had the report that she supposedly filed.

Let's see it. It's public record. Surely at least one news agency is chasing it down.

[marl1220]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

My apologies, I wasn't trying to say you personally; that was a general "you".

A cell phone won't kill a room full of people but if I had to guess I'd say distracted driving is in the top 3 for causes of car vehicle accidents and cell phones contribute to that. My point though is that most of the things we have we don't need; they are luxuries. If you don't like or own guns that's fine. But I do like them. My guns have killed zero people. The only way I'd ever shoot someone is in a life threatening situation. And IF that ever happened (I highly doubt it will) I would be doing so with a handgun outside the house and a shotgun inside the house. My AR-15 is for fun; it's a hobby. Again, you have a small handful of nutjobs using them to go on kill sprees so you take them away from millions of law-abiding citizens?

Very valid point. Thanks for the well thought out response.

[Soxfanguy]

Originally Posted by Joan p

I support the constitution and your unalienable right to own a musket


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The internet didn’t exist in 1776. Should the first amendment not apply to it?

[Soxfanguy]

Originally Posted by majestik101

The new WH press secretary is a smoke show

Preakness is that you

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by discostu

Of course it should be larger, just like fewer Americans should be living paycheck to paycheck. But there are real financial concerns that don't involve the market or 401ks.

But it would never negate my premise...the majority of Americans have little to no influence and/or impact regarding the stock market.

The stock market will always be stacked against those that can't weather a storm. Always.

The stock market would rather outsource a job or issue layoffs to increase share value, rather than maintain those that can't weather the storm.

We are in a bubble here, the entire forum is based around a hobby with tremendous expendable income. However, even in this market we get to see how market influences prey on the lower level collectors.

People spending money on non essential things are what stacks them against being able to weather a storm.
The hobby you mention is a perfect example.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by Joan p

Serious question: Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable for a private citizen to own? Unless you believe people have a right to own a nuclear warhead there has to be a line somewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I beg of you to point me in the direction to where I can buy a nuclear warhead.
Me, I don't own a gun. I live in a pretty decent neighborhood where I feel safe without one. I have been going back and forth on purchasing one though, thanks to Democrats.
Someone else asked, why would you need one? Well it may come in handy if another bad person has one and I don't.

[Joan p]

Originally Posted by Soxfanguy

The internet didn’t exist in 1776. Should the first amendment not apply to it?

Interesting question, There is so much actual disinformation on the internet , I don’t know. I do know there is no way the anti- vaccine movement would have ever started without it . An argument could be made that it’s done as much harm as good. I love the internet , it’s like having access to every book ever written , I really don’t know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rman112]

Originally Posted by discostu

Curiously only one of them mentioned sexual assault...in her third, evolving iteration of the incident.

At the end, you're smarter than this, so this is clearly calculated. Equating these women in a singular list is disingenuous.

You know there are clear differences between someone's uncomfortable actions as a legacy from a bygone era and predatory sexual assault.

I'm not that old, but I'm also not sure which era telling a 14 year old she has nice tits was acceptable in, either.

[techtre2003]

@Joan
No I wouldn't gladly give up my hobby because some nutjob decides to go out and shoot people. My guns have absolutely nothing to do with that. I also won't give up my knives because some nutjob might stab someone. I won't give up my fish tank cleaner because some nutjob might drink it.

[marl1220]

Originally Posted by Astros19

I beg of you to point me in the direction to where I can buy a nuclear warhead.
Me, I don't own a gun. I live in a pretty decent neighborhood where I feel safe without one. I have been going back and forth on purchasing one though, thanks to Democrats.
Someone else asked, why would you need one? Well it may come in handy if another bad person has one and I don't.

I know there are plenty of responsible gun owners. Many of who are members on this board. Unfortunately there are many who aren't. This, by no means, should be reason for people to lose their rights. That being said I found the information on the below website troubling.


https://injury.research.chop.edu/vio...d#.Xqx-fBnYrnE

[rman112]

You might be able to find a warhead on Craigslist.

[RedSoxFan28]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

@Joan
No I wouldn't gladly give up my hobby because some nutjob decides to go out and shoot people. My guns have absolutely nothing to do with that. I also won't give up my knives because some nutjob might stab someone. I won't give up my fish tank cleaner because some nutjob might drink it.

Tons of people are on their phones while they're driving and dont crash. Why stop them because some nutjob ends up crashing?

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by RedSoxFan28

Tons of people are on their phones while they're driving and dont crash. Why not let them continue because some nutjob ends up crashing?

Texting and deciding isn’t constitutionally protected.

[Joan p]

Originally Posted by Astros19

I beg of you to point me in the direction to where I can buy a nuclear warhead.
Me, I don't own a gun. I live in a pretty decent neighborhood where I feel safe without one. I have been going back and forth on purchasing one though, thanks to Democrats.
Someone else asked, why would you need one? Well it may come in handy if another bad person has one and I don't.

I was just trying to figure out where the line should be . I don’t have a gun either and would never allow one my home. I’m sure most of the people in my area do though and I honestly don’t care if they have a shotgun or a pistol but there is simply no need to own some of these weapons


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marl1220]

Originally Posted by RedSoxFan28

Tons of people are on their phones while they're driving and dont crash. Why not let them continue because some nutjob ends up crashing?

Plenty of people are able to drive after drinking without having an accident. Why let the ones who can't ruin it for everyone?

[Astros19]

The funny thing about this discussion about why would you own a certain weapon, we are going through something at this very moment that shows exactly why I would want to own one.
One, the government, be it state or federal, putting in place laws that I and many others feverishly disagree with. Please don't go with the typical "well your gun is no match for our defense department" because we all know not all law enforcement personnel agrees with one side or the other and no one can say for certain how that would play out.
Two, given the current situation with the Covid virus I don't think it's too far fetched to see something similar to where those that have the weapons have a distinct advantage over those who are unarmed. Some will chalk this up to crazy talk, but I don't believe it to be too far fetched. We live in a very scary world.

[pac213up]

Originally Posted by JeremyNick

Texting and deciding isn’t constitutionally protected.

#freespeech