Display posts from previous
Sort by

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

76 by YankeeTarheel
sikacz wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2024 6:24 am
BearPaws wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2024 6:00 am
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2024 11:50 pm The most dangerous monster I see is the crazy puppet leading the Project 2025 charge, a charge to end our democratic republic and replace it with an inherently corrupt and vindictive dictatorship, with no recourse to the courts.
I see that one, and the ones who are his avid cult followers.

I also recognize that I lead a privileged life, even if I am not aware of all the privileges I enjoy. I trust those who I know to not enjoy some of the more blatant privileges when they tell me their side of things.
I’m with CowboyT, there’s dangers that have been heightened to minority communities which will not go away regardless of who is elected and we have plenty of minority communities from ethnic, religious, and also transgender communities. Having one side disarm us with those harmful forces vibrant and alive is naive. Electing someone like harris isn’t the solution, it delays one type of event at the expense of increasing the danger in another. Frankly I’ll suffer trough four years of someone who isn’t about to remove a constitutional right. I trust the constitution and the structures behind it more than an avenging individual bent on limiting or removing an effective defense. I don’t care for the choice, we’ll protect these of your rights, but we’re going to take away this one that involves guns that we don’t think you need. There are dangers out there that are real and they are not under my bed or under yours, they live in our communities watching for the moment their victims are vulnerable.
This is where you are deluded. First, it won't be 4 years--it will be until the day he dies and then he may WELL be replaced with Don, Jr, or some other dictatorial lout. Second, you have other rights than 2A and he has ALREADY shown he is willing to remove your rights guaranteed under Habeas Corpus, 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A (SCOTUS already took that one), the 2nd half of 10A, 12A, 14A, 15A, 22A, and 25A. For reference: Sending the mob to the Capitol and trying to get Pence out of (so he couldn't enact his 12A duty) is just one example of what Felonious Trump DID his first time around. Third: He WILL seek to disarm anyone who isn't a Red Hat and he won't do it by enacting laws but by the 2am "Knock On The Door"--a classic dictator terror tactic.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

77 by highdesert
Democrats and Republicans use fear tactics, when persuasion no longer works on voters. We already had 4 years of Trump and while it was chaotic, it wasn't a dictatorship because we are a country of laws, not absolute monarchs or dictators. The fear factor works on a lot of people, just like negative advertising they both work.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

78 by sikacz
highdesert wrote: Sun Aug 11, 2024 7:14 am Democrats and Republicans use fear tactics, when persuasion no longer works on voters. We already had 4 years of Trump and while it was chaotic, it wasn't a dictatorship because we are a country of laws, not absolute monarchs or dictators. The fear factor works on a lot of people, just like negative advertising they both work.
I’m done with fear mongering and I’m done with know it all rebuttals that demean and dismiss other people’s perspectives, experiences and understanding. We are a country of laws and will continue to be. The constitution won’t be easily sidelined.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

79 by YankeeTarheel
highdesert wrote: Sun Aug 11, 2024 7:14 am Democrats and Republicans use fear tactics, when persuasion no longer works on voters. We already had 4 years of Trump and while it was chaotic, it wasn't a dictatorship because we are a country of laws, not absolute monarchs or dictators. The fear factor works on a lot of people, just like negative advertising they both work.
Have you looked a Project 2025 at all? We BARELY survived 4 years of Trump and he attempted to seize the election he lost almost like Madura in Venezuela. He simply didn't have enough loyalists in place in the military and executive branch to pull it off. But he will if he gets back in office. As the old saying goes, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me!
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

80 by CDFingers
On the polling thread, I posted the story about ProPublica getting 14 hours of 2025 "training" videos and posted them online. Brilliant.

A weak position will mischaracterize its opposition and then argue against that inaccurate description. This is one of the things that makes it a weak position. A strong position will accurately assess its opposition then tailor specific counter arguments against that position. This is one of the things that makes it a strong position.

The 45 campaign says they don't know anything about Project 2025. Because ProPublica put it out there, the hapless cult party exposes a weak position. They will lose. Weak positions usually lose.

CDF
It's a buck dancer's choice my friend, better take my advice
You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

81 by SunRiseWest
I get it about not wanting to turn your name over by writing to Harris. I'm not sure how real the risk is, but I certainly understand it.

Good discussion of the PAT RIOT act-- and important to be reminded of what a bad moment that was, how enraged, helpless and pathetic I thought our country seemed when nearly everyone voted for it. And I'm not getting a 'Real' ID. Good idea to carry a passport whenever I travel domestically anyway-- you never know when you might have to leave the country unexpectedly, mostly due to some friend having a crisis overseas (which happened to me recently) but also, I suppose, due to political unrest.

What a farce! Man, I hate Security Theater.

And I agree with CD, it did abruptly turn into a very interesting discussion. I also agree that the danger of incrementalism is absolutely real-- and now I'm thinking of this argument more in terms of balancing the danger or incremental loss of rights against the risk of potential abrupt loss of liberty due to tyranny.

I think my position is more that I'm not against gun control. It doesn't bother me that guns are harder to get in some places than in others.

What I am against-- generally-- is MORE gun control. Certainly not now. Like Voudou says, this isn't a great moment; our current legislative and judicial apparatus is too dysfunctional.

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

82 by highdesert
The USA Patriot Act passed in 2001 was a major violation of our civil rights, Congress' response to 9/11. The current Democratic leaders of the Senate Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin both voted for it along with Republican leader Mitch McConnell. Only Democratic Sen Russ Feingold of WI voted No in the Senate.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/subs ... e_2001.htm
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

83 by CDFingers
It may very well come to pass that the Dems take both Houses and the White House. This thread exposes a likely outcome of such a win: a potential, proposed "AW" ban. (For the present, we will ignore the option in the Senate of a Senator being able to strangle any legislation). I will tell you how to argue it.

The term "assault weapon" actually refers to a semi automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine which enjoys the feature of "selective fire," which may include either a three round "burst" or a full auto select. These are military rifles, and by law they would be subject to regulation under the NFA of 1934. This is where we can accidentally make a weak argument. Let me explain.

If we want to overturn the NFA, then that is the focus of the piece of writing. What we really want to protect is our right to buy a semi automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine. I know that's a mouthful, so we should use the term, "modern sporting rifle." Never "assault rifle." Using that term allows corporate media to define our position.

Once we separate automatic or burst weapons from mere semi-automatic rifles, we can use Heller to make the case for "weapons in common use." While it is true that Heller referred to hand guns, the decision does not limit its ruling to those weapons.

Since fear short circuits reason, we must understand that voters fear mass shootings. Sure. That's understandable. Yet when we post the actual stats about deaths from firearms, we find that the most common weapon is the hand gun. And we find that most of the deaths from guns are suicides. Mass shootings remain relatively rare in comparison to suicides and homicides. We then include a sentence asking whether we should throw up our hands and do nothing, or ban all firearms or something equally lame. No.

What we do is expose the facts about root cause mitigation. We say that it's people who shoot people, and there are proven strategies of mitigation that have been demonstrably successful. For example, we run a search for "pay gang members not to shoot each other." We find many examples. We tally up those costs. We find that it's cheaper to pay folks not to shoot each other.

Another strategy is to show that zones that have certain features that make it easier and more healthy to live, well, those places have fewer mass shootings, suicides, and homicides. Now, your mileage may vary about what it takes to have a stable and orderly community. To me, such a community would have a wide variety of available jobs, access to healthy food and public transportation, good schools and health care, opportunities for recreation, and honest and effective police and fire departments in a multi racial community. We should find stable and orderly communities with low gun crime and find out why that is so. We do the tallies, and we conclude that it's better for more folks and cheaper to improve our communities than it is to try to enforce a ban on specific gun ownership. We would claim with evidence that orderly and stable communities who enjoy the above and other features exhibit fewer homicides and mass shootings, and so on.

The same technique may be applied to other aspects of gun law. The major point I want to make is that a strong argument is a specific argument. We may have seven or ten or more things we subsume under "gun control." So, rather than posing a general and nebulous broadside against something quite vague, we make those seven or ten or what ever specific arguments.

Finally, the 2A grants the right to "keep and bear arms." It says nothing about what may or may not be done with those arms. The 9A shows we may not "deny or disparage" any other rights which are not listed.

If I have a dollar and give it to you, I'm out a dollar and you're up a dollar. Ideas are different. I can give y'all these ideas, yet I still retain them. Make stronger arguments and you will be rewarded. Vague arguments just frustrate the writer and give opponents full magazines, as it were.

CDF
It's a buck dancer's choice my friend, better take my advice
You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

84 by BKinzey
CDFingers wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 6:29 pm ....The term "assault weapon" actually refers to a semi automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine which enjoys the feature of "selective fire,"...
That isn't how the state of California legally defines an assault weapon. There is no mention of selective fire.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

85 by CDFingers
BKinzey wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 8:37 pm
CDFingers wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 6:29 pm ....The term "assault weapon" actually refers to a semi automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine which enjoys the feature of "selective fire,"...
That isn't how the state of California legally defines an assault weapon. There is no mention of selective fire.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2
You're right, of course. California is one of those states. That's why I used "refers." The original Sturmgewehr 44 is the original assault rifle. When arguing against language designed to make things sound scary, we have to call it out. So those rifles with that kind of fire would be regulated under the NFA34. I think that could be used against what I consider to be a false designation. This SCOTUS could be open to removing bans on modern sporting rifles for that reason.

To remind about California, we require microstamping in new handguns, for which technology does not exist, and then deny the gun can be sold here without microstamping. To call a rifle an AW is playing into the media's hands, and that influences foolish states like California. That we love. Messy.

CDF
It's a buck dancer's choice my friend, better take my advice
You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

86 by YankeeTarheel
CDFingers wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 6:29 pm It may very well come to pass that the Dems take both Houses and the White House. This thread exposes a likely outcome of such a win: a potential, proposed "AW" ban. (For the present, we will ignore the option in the Senate of a Senator being able to strangle any legislation). I will tell you how to argue it.

The term "assault weapon" actually refers to a semi automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine which enjoys the feature of "selective fire," which may include either a three round "burst" or a full auto select. These are military rifles, and by law they would be subject to regulation under the NFA of 1934. This is where we can accidentally make a weak argument. Let me explain.

If we want to overturn the NFA, then that is the focus of the piece of writing. What we really want to protect is our right to buy a semi automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine. I know that's a mouthful, so we should use the term, "modern sporting rifle." Never "assault rifle." Using that term allows corporate media to define our position.

Once we separate automatic or burst weapons from mere semi-automatic rifles, we can use Heller to make the case for "weapons in common use." While it is true that Heller referred to hand guns, the decision does not limit its ruling to those weapons.

Since fear short circuits reason, we must understand that voters fear mass shootings. Sure. That's understandable. Yet when we post the actual stats about deaths from firearms, we find that the most common weapon is the hand gun. And we find that most of the deaths from guns are suicides. Mass shootings remain relatively rare in comparison to suicides and homicides. We then include a sentence asking whether we should throw up our hands and do nothing, or ban all firearms or something equally lame. No.

What we do is expose the facts about root cause mitigation. We say that it's people who shoot people, and there are proven strategies of mitigation that have been demonstrably successful. For example, we run a search for "pay gang members not to shoot each other." We find many examples. We tally up those costs. We find that it's cheaper to pay folks not to shoot each other.

Another strategy is to show that zones that have certain features that make it easier and more healthy to live, well, those places have fewer mass shootings, suicides, and homicides. Now, your mileage may vary about what it takes to have a stable and orderly community. To me, such a community would have a wide variety of available jobs, access to healthy food and public transportation, good schools and health care, opportunities for recreation, and honest and effective police and fire departments in a multi racial community. We should find stable and orderly communities with low gun crime and find out why that is so. We do the tallies, and we conclude that it's better for more folks and cheaper to improve our communities than it is to try to enforce a ban on specific gun ownership. We would claim with evidence that orderly and stable communities who enjoy the above and other features exhibit fewer homicides and mass shootings, and so on.

The same technique may be applied to other aspects of gun law. The major point I want to make is that a strong argument is a specific argument. We may have seven or ten or more things we subsume under "gun control." So, rather than posing a general and nebulous broadside against something quite vague, we make those seven or ten or what ever specific arguments.

Finally, the 2A grants the right to "keep and bear arms." It says nothing about what may or may not be done with those arms. The 9A shows we may not "deny or disparage" any other rights which are not listed.

If I have a dollar and give it to you, I'm out a dollar and you're up a dollar. Ideas are different. I can give y'all these ideas, yet I still retain them. Make stronger arguments and you will be rewarded. Vague arguments just frustrate the writer and give opponents full magazines, as it were.

CDF
I have to take a minor issue: What you call an "Assault Weapon" is incorrect. That's properly called an "Assault Rifle" and there is a significant difference. "Assault Rifle" has the precise meaning you describe, but "Assault Weapon" is whatever the fuck the Federal and State legislatures call it! Hell, Paul Pelosi was nearly killed assaulted with a weapon--a common hammer (of which I have over a dozen of various types).

New Jersey, my home state for the last 31 years, has an AWB nearly identical to the 1994 national AWB. Yet I own 3 semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines, including an AR-10, and fellow regional club members in both NJ and NY own AR-15s, Despite the restrictions, we don't have weird Cali rule of no pistol grips. But we do have the ridiculous 10 round mag limit imposed at the end of 2018--when we already had a 15 round limit.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

87 by CDFingers
Your point is well taken. This is why I say never to use the term "assault weapon" because it carries water for the media, which influences voters. It has been some years, but the term that's less scary and perhaps more accurate to describe these items is "modern sporting rifle." If we use "AW", we're doing the work of anti gun media and pols.

onedit: Argumentation is about controlling the rhetorical space. We should not call it an AR-15 because the media suggest it means "assault rifle." Nah. Call it an Armalite Rifle Model 15, or call it a modern sporting rifle. We need to not do the media's bidding and let the scary word "assault" continue to live in the rhetorical space.


CDF
It's a buck dancer's choice my friend, better take my advice
You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

88 by BKinzey
CDFingers wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 10:15 pm ....
To remind about California, we require microstamping in new handguns, for which technology does not exist, ...
That requirement was rescinded some time ago and since then several new pistols have ben added to the roster. I was able to purchase a new Sig Sauer P365 pistol a couple of months ago. Of course it had (and I emphasize HAD) a loaded chamber indicator and a trigger disconnect if there wasn't a magazine inserted which are some of the requirements that remain in effect.

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

89 by CDFingers
This is good news. California will try something else, and we know it. We liberal gun owners must reclaim the rhetorical space sullied by those who invent scary names and misrepresent about where the most gun deaths reside. I live here and always abide the law, despite its potential falsehoods. I don't have a dog in the fight. Yet I find it easy to detect weak premises in the history of California's tango with guns.

CDF
It's a buck dancer's choice my friend, better take my advice
You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

90 by featureless
BKinzey wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2024 12:17 pm
CDFingers wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 10:15 pm ....
To remind about California, we require microstamping in new handguns, for which technology does not exist, ...
That requirement was rescinded some time ago and since then several new pistols have ben added to the roster. I was able to purchase a new Sig Sauer P365 pistol a couple of months ago. Of course it had (and I emphasize HAD) a loaded chamber indicator and a trigger disconnect if there wasn't a magazine inserted which are some of the requirements that remain in effect.
Temporarily rescinded. There is a new one going into effect 2025, I believe, for all handguns, used or new. Not the asterisk on the new models on the roster. Get 'em while the getting is good.

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

91 by TrueTexan
Reading this thread and others it comes to me that what is being done as for gun use and ownership is not as the Second Amendment states as the right to own guns. The founding Fathers didn't really make it vey clear on the right as for where it is for a militia or a personal home defense. Later rulings and laws have made it worse. We can all agree on that case. Seems to me, almost every state ands many cities in each step have their own laws and ordinances when it comes to gun ownership and control without any real set of standards at any level. Can you imagine if we had the same chaos in the motor vehicle operations and driving on the roads and yes we do have some of it in our highways and byways. But the road we travel are pretty much the same as for the laws and customs of the road. As I said earlier that isn't true about gun laws and ordinances and what I would like to see is a set of laws at the federal level that supersedes theses and local laws on guns and sets a standard that follows the Second Amendment as for the right to keep and bear arms. This would be Federal laws for all the US States and Territories. These laws would be the standard and not to be exceeded by star laws. The people of California should have the same rights to guns as those in Texas or other more liberal gun states.

I say that, but there will also be some changes. mainly in nomenclature Assault weapons / Assault rifles would be individual issued military weapons that have a selector switch to allow fully automatic fire with depression of the trigger. A semi-automatic weapon or rifle not able to fire fully automatic is NOT an assault rifle even if it is a visual copy of an assault weapon. A rifle or other firearm that is modified to fire full automatic with the depression of the trigger or use of a device such as a bump stock or other device shall fall under the same laws and rules as a true assault weapon.

If you have such a weapon that can fire full auto then you shall be required to buy a Tax Stamp and have it registered with the federal government.That is the law. That is $200 for the stamp and has been that since 1934. . Some have stated the price should be increased to account for inflation. Also that is about the same cost of 350 rounds of 5.56 ammo. That is the law and until it is change abide by it or face the consequences. Convicted felons aren't legally able to buy or own guns.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

93 by CowboyT
That's true, the semi-automatic AR-15's that you can buy in a gun store are not what's issued to our troops. When I was in the USAF, the troops who needed issue firearms got the M16A2, with the "multiple rounds per trigger pull" switch. The M4 Carbine that the military gets, same thing. They also get the 14" or shorter barrel for closer-quarters combat.

Same goes for the police. They can get the full-auto versions readily through the Federal military surplus program. Yep, they can get machine guns. That ain't the same as the Bushmaster AR-15 in your local gun store.

The term, "assault weapon" is a term coined by Josh Sugarmann of Handgun Control, Inc., renamed the "Violence Policy Center". It's a propaganda term specifically to try to make gun control more palatable to voters.

Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

Note also the association with the desire to ban handguns, which they originally wanted to do, but clearly could not get that done. So, they went to--to quote Mr. Sugarmann--"a new topic", specifically, "assault weapons", to further their gun-control agenda. Step by step, they figured out....
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

94 by CDFingers
TT, what you describe is one of the problems of Federalism. I explored that in the "A New Problem" thread. If rights get devolved to the states, then it should be done consistently. In no state is a citizen disarmed; in many states, citizens are deprived of certain models and classes of guns, but they can still have guns. However, in many conservative states we see severe laws which actually deprive citizens of the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects--and this is sanctioned by our severely corrupted SCOTUS. Legislation must first be crafted to reign in the acceptance that rich donors may fill the sails of judges while stranding citizens on leaky plank rafts from the nineteenth century. After that regulation of graft and corruption, legislation must be crafted to make sure Federalism allows the full spectrum of rights to all citizens.

I don't hold out too much hope for any of those ideas, as the wretched hive of scum and villainy which is the hard right wing of our American bird worships money way more than they even conceive of liberty.

There is a long term strategy in both the left and right wings. The left wants to vote out the Dominionists, and the right wants to vote out those who favor more social democracy. Yeah, health care for all is so difficult that only 32 of the world's 33 largest economies have been able to pull it off. Why is that? Dominionists want dominion over everyone, where those who favor more social democracy would prefer to govern.

CDF
It's a buck dancer's choice my friend, better take my advice
You know all the rules by now, and the fire from the ice

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

95 by Loquat4440
I just wish there was somebody better to vote for. I will vote, but it will be a write in protest.
No matter if it is Harris Walz or Trump Vance the nation is in for it. No matter who wins the other will cry foul and there will violent troubles. Then what person that is in power will turn the forces of the government to suppress those causing the trouble.
The economic forces in the world are also changing relative to the BRICS nations. If we do not get a hold on inflation the nation will be in ruins. For those in the shooting world, China has sanctioned the USA by refusing as of August to any any Nitrocellulose to the USA and they are said to make about 50% of world's total production.
The country is truly heavily influenced by the MIC and has been for many years now and now also the insurance and healthcare industries. Trump to them is a loose cannon because they can not control him. It remains to be seen even if he wins if lives long enough to assume the white house.

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

96 by sikacz
Loquat4440 wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2024 4:26 am I just wish there was somebody better to vote for. I will vote, but it will be a write in protest.
No matter if it is Harris Walz or Trump Vance the nation is in for it. No matter who wins the other will cry foul and there will violent troubles. Then what person that is in power will turn the forces of the government to suppress those causing the trouble.
The economic forces in the world are also changing relative to the BRICS nations. If we do not get a hold on inflation the nation will be in ruins. For those in the shooting world, China has sanctioned the USA by refusing as of August to any any Nitrocellulose to the USA and they are said to make about 50% of world's total production.
The country is truly heavily influenced by the MIC and has been for many years now and now also the insurance and healthcare industries. Trump to them is a loose cannon because they can not control him. It remains to be seen even if he wins if lives long enough to assume the white house.
Agree.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

97 by BearPaws
Loquat4440 wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2024 4:26 am I just wish there was somebody better to vote for. I will vote, but it will be a write in protest.
No matter if it is Harris Walz or Trump Vance the nation is in for it. No matter who wins the other will cry foul and there will violent troubles. Then what person that is in power will turn the forces of the government to suppress those causing the trouble.
The economic forces in the world are also changing relative to the BRICS nations. If we do not get a hold on inflation the nation will be in ruins. For those in the shooting world, China has sanctioned the USA by refusing as of August to any any Nitrocellulose to the USA and they are said to make about 50% of world's total production.
The country is truly heavily influenced by the MIC and has been for many years now and now also the insurance and healthcare industries. Trump to them is a loose cannon because they can not control him. It remains to be seen even if he wins if lives long enough to assume the white house.
Here in deep red KY, who I vote for won't make much difference--TOS is all but guaranteed to take all the EC votes, thanks to the willfully-uneducated populace.

I have friends who are ready for the whole country to go down the tubes, acknowledging that the Democratic Party is the political right, and the GOP is the guano-right. There is no viable left-leaning party or candidate, and hasn't been for a long time. I keep seeing people talking about Jill Stein, but I remember her going kinda whacko last go-round. At one time I wanted to see Dennis Kucinich as POTUS, but some of the things he's said in the last year have put me off him, too.
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

99 by CowboyT
sikacz wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:39 pm Seems like all potential candidates are just plain nuts. What happened to reasonable candidates that could at least look at issue objectively and with compassion regardless of their party.
They got run out of their various parties.

1.) They got primaried. That happened recently to a fellow named Chap Petersen, a Democrat, in Northern Virginia at the hands of a Bloom-boy-backed candidate.

2.) They left their parties because the establishment power-brokers realized they cared more about the people vs. power and thus wouldn't "play ball", as the saying goes. This happened with Bob Sarvis, a Republican, here in Virginia, and Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat in Montana.

3.) They realized they no longer agreed with the direction their party leadership was going. This happened with Jim Jeffords, Colin Powell, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Jr.

Basically, you have to be what John Perkins calls, a "good man" in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. That includes the likes the Bushes, the Clintons, Biden, DeSantis, and so on.

Brian Schweitzer never would approve of, or sign on to, a ban on semi-automatic rifles. Matter of fact, as Governor in Montana, he did exactly the opposite. Bob Sarvis has similar views regarding gun control.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Why everybody here should be against gun control, including Sodium Chloride ("A Salt") Weapons

100 by YankeeTarheel
CowboyT wrote: Mon Sep 30, 2024 8:38 pm
sikacz wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:39 pm Seems like all potential candidates are just plain nuts. What happened to reasonable candidates that could at least look at issue objectively and with compassion regardless of their party.
They got run out of their various parties.

1.) They got primaried. That happened recently to a fellow named Chap Petersen, a Democrat, in Northern Virginia at the hands of a Bloom-boy-backed candidate.

2.) They left their parties because the establishment power-brokers realized they cared more about the people vs. power and thus wouldn't "play ball", as the saying goes. This happened with Bob Sarvis, a Republican, here in Virginia, and Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat in Montana.

3.) They realized they no longer agreed with the direction their party leadership was going. This happened with Jim Jeffords, Colin Powell, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Jr.

Basically, you have to be what John Perkins calls, a "good man" in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. That includes the likes the Bushes, the Clintons, Biden, DeSantis, and so on.

Brian Schweitzer never would approve of, or sign on to, a ban on semi-automatic rifles. Matter of fact, as Governor in Montana, he did exactly the opposite. Bob Sarvis has similar views regarding gun control.
I'm Sorry. I JUST have to call "Bullshit!" People don't just get "primaried". They get voted out by party members who organize and others who don't bother to vote. AOC got nominated after she "primaried" the long-time boring congressman. That's how Democracy works. And sometimes it fucking sucks for the one who loses.

Sitting back and complaining isn't how change happens. The TeaParty (Damn their souls!) played the game right even THOUGH the RNC opposed them. They did what needed to be done to get what they wanted, which fucked over the rest of us. But, tactically, they were brilliant.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."
Post Reply

Return to “A Well Regulated Militia...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests