People Surrounded by Armed Troops with Select Fire Weapons....

[Utilitarian]

Not surrounding me. I favor background checks in all transfers (sale or gift) accept between direct family members and believe rifles have no place on the streets, yet you should be able to have any weapon you choose on your property to protect yourself and your family also should be able to hunt game with anything acceptable to the regulators in your state. That does not infringe. It is just well regulated.

What if regulators decide that hunting is "unacceptable" or that guns in general are?

That is just the point. Useless argument, as it patently isn't going to happen. I am not preparing for little birds or angels to fly out your ass when you voice your opinions or pronouncements either. Please let me know and post the video. I will consider giving more weight or respect at that time.

Before the Supreme Court intervened, Chicago and DC deemed all guns "unacceptable" in most applications. Said Court intervention was a 5-4 decision in both cases as well.

In other words, betting that the Court will block local bans is a very risky proposition. Heller and McDonald were only possible with a conservative Court. If it becomes liberal at some point, both rulings could be overturned potentially.

This is why you should be wary of what local regulators deem "unacceptable", unless you live in a deep red state.

No getting around the fact that we have a conservative court now, but some day in the nebulous future, we might not. Personally, I think that weapons for self defense should only be regulated at the Federal level and states or cities should not be allowed to set their own, though I do believe in there should be intelligent regulations governing their carry and use in all cities. That intelligent part is the rub. What is one person's intelligent is another person's radical crazy crap. Gun manufacturers do not favor any regulation, so neither does NRA anymore, as it often interferes with the way they do business. Criminals won't pay attention to any regulations. They never have paid attention to the law, hence being criminal. Mothers against guns (if there is a group of that name) or some other anti-gun group may very well wish for ban of all guns, but that crap ain't happening either. Somewhere in the middle is an unhappy medium, but you'll never find it if paranoid pro and anti gun loudmouths just stand around calling each other names with an all or nothing, winner take all attitude.

Yeah, most commies want central control.

.

I am a commie and commies are totally against central control.
Communism means communal, cooperative, and collective, which all requires or implies local control.

But basically every time a Communist group overthrows a government, they become more authoritarian than their predecessors -- like Lenin and Mao.

I understand that Marx himself has a lot in common with anarchists, but when his followers get power, they usually end up with more in common with Nazis.

 

[White 6]

I already mentioned 2 cities where guns were effectively banned in most situations - DC and Chicago. Thankfully, the Supreme Court intervened.

The way I understand it, still very difficult to get a permit in those places and other, where it should be a right for citizens with a clean background to get a permit with training, yet other states have constitutional carry of anything including ARs to walk the streets no questions asked. It's crazy going both direction.

I don't see what the problem with constitutional carry is. Most people who carry don't get in shootings.

And frankly, plenty of shootings have been stopped by others with guns.

I taught this crap for a lot of years. Without decent training you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you. Some people with repeated training are almost as bad. Just look at YouTube. Talk to military that have seen trained dumb asses accidentally fire their weapon into a sand barrel twice, just clearing it to got to chow, or the guys who after leaving the range, have ejected a live round at the cleaning table without a magazine even in the weapon, and this is people supposedly trained. Many have no respect for their weapons or presence of mind, and are dangerous, even on a range. No problem with even those folks having whatever weapons they want for home defense. There is a lot of stuff you can do in your home and it is your business that normal people would never do or would never be permitted to do out in public. This ain't 1790 and instead of 3 million citizen on the continent, we got over 300,000,000, much of it in overcrowded cities. 1790 rules don't cut it.

If that's the argument, then we should disarm cops. We've seen plenty of cases where they fire without any regard for bystanders.

Disarm the cops? No, your idea to disarm law enforcement is no good, and we, the American people will speak out against your foolishness at every turn. First you wanted to de-fund and abolish, but you failed and everybody kept their police force. Now you want them disarmed. You are nuts! It ain't happening. You want to try higher/stricter standards on police marksmanship weapons safety training? That would be something I could go for. Training works. Training to higher standards contributes to excellence and safety.

 

[jknowgood]

Not surrounding me. I favor background checks in all transfers (sale or gift) accept between direct family members and believe rifles have no place on the streets, yet you should be able to have any weapon you choose on your property to protect yourself and your family also should be able to hunt game with anything acceptable to the regulators in your state. That does not infringe. It is just well regulated.

If you can vote like this, then you should be able to get a gun. If you loons would stop teach children to respect others in school. Instead of gender is fluid, it's okay to kill your baby in the womb, and Republicans are evil. We wouldn't have so much evil around to lay the ground work for senseless killing by people using guns to kill.

 

[Rigby5]

Not surrounding me. I favor background checks in all transfers (sale or gift) accept between direct family members and believe rifles have no place on the streets, yet you should be able to have any weapon you choose on your property to protect yourself and your family also should be able to hunt game with anything acceptable to the regulators in your state. That does not infringe. It is just well regulated.

What if regulators decide that hunting is "unacceptable" or that guns in general are?

That is just the point. Useless argument, as it patently isn't going to happen. I am not preparing for little birds or angels to fly out your ass when you voice your opinions or pronouncements either. Please let me know and post the video. I will consider giving more weight or respect at that time.

Before the Supreme Court intervened, Chicago and DC deemed all guns "unacceptable" in most applications. Said Court intervention was a 5-4 decision in both cases as well.

In other words, betting that the Court will block local bans is a very risky proposition. Heller and McDonald were only possible with a conservative Court. If it becomes liberal at some point, both rulings could be overturned potentially.

This is why you should be wary of what local regulators deem "unacceptable", unless you live in a deep red state.

No getting around the fact that we have a conservative court now, but some day in the nebulous future, we might not. Personally, I think that weapons for self defense should only be regulated at the Federal level and states or cities should not be allowed to set their own, though I do believe in there should be intelligent regulations governing their carry and use in all cities. That intelligent part is the rub. What is one person's intelligent is another person's radical crazy crap. Gun manufacturers do not favor any regulation, so neither does NRA anymore, as it often interferes with the way they do business. Criminals won't pay attention to any regulations. They never have paid attention to the law, hence being criminal. Mothers against guns (if there is a group of that name) or some other anti-gun group may very well wish for ban of all guns, but that crap ain't happening either. Somewhere in the middle is an unhappy medium, but you'll never find it if paranoid pro and anti gun loudmouths just stand around calling each other names with an all or nothing, winner take all attitude.

Yeah, most commies want central control.

.

I am a commie and commies are totally against central control.
Communism means communal, cooperative, and collective, which all requires or implies local control.

But basically every time a Communist group overthrows a government, they become more authoritarian than their predecessors -- like Lenin and Mao.

I understand that Marx himself has a lot in common with anarchists, but when his followers get power, they usually end up with more in common with Nazis.

Lenin and Mao were not at all even remotely communists.
Lenin was a paid German agent sent into Russia to take it out of WWI.
Stalin was a bank robber the revolutionaries used to raise cash, but he turned on them and killed them all, and established state capitalism that is nothing remotely like communism.
Mao was an agent of Stalinism as well.
Nothing remotely communist.

Nazis were National Socialist, which translates to anti-socialists.
They specifically were picked by the wealthy elite, military, and corporations, in order to murder or imprison all the communists and socialists.
Remember, Hitler won no elections, but was appointed by Hindenburg, who obviously was part of the wealthy elite.
Other than VW, did Hitler do anything remotely socialist?
Not at all. Not a single thing.
All the weapons Germany made during WWII, (except VW), were made for profit by capitalist companies.

 

[White 6]

I already mentioned 2 cities where guns were effectively banned in most situations - DC and Chicago. Thankfully, the Supreme Court intervened.

The way I understand it, still very difficult to get a permit in those places and other, where it should be a right for citizens with a clean background to get a permit with training, yet other states have constitutional carry of anything including ARs to walk the streets no questions asked. It's crazy going both direction.

I don't see what the problem with constitutional carry is. Most people who carry don't get in shootings.

And frankly, plenty of shootings have been stopped by others with guns.

I taught this crap for a lot of years. Without decent training you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you. Some people with repeated training are almost as bad. Just look at YouTube. Talk to military that have seen trained dumb asses accidentally fire their weapon into a sand barrel twice, just clearing it to got to chow, or the guys who after leaving the range, have ejected a live round at the cleaning table without a magazine even in the weapon, and this is people supposedly trained. Many have no respect for their weapons or presence of mind, and are dangerous, even on a range. No problem with even those folks having whatever weapons they want for home defense. There is a lot of stuff you can do in your home and it is your business that normal people would never do or would never be permitted to do out in public. This ain't 1790 and instead of 3 million citizen on the continent, we got over 300,000,000, much of it in overcrowded cities. 1790 rules don't cut it.

How could 1790 rules not still cut it?
The number irresponsible people, accidents, and deaths will increase, the % stays the same.
It is not like it is so crowded not that one accidental shot will hit 2 people or something like that?
In fact, the need for arms by everyone is much greater now than in 1790 because there is less room for hunting, cottage industries, etc., so crime and corruption are much higher than they ever have been.
Back then our government was not so corrupt that it lied about Iraqi WMD in order to start a distant war of aggression over oil.
To me we seem more on the verge of needing another rebellion more than ever.
Back in 1790 they would never have even considered something so corrupt and insane as a "War on Drugs".

We have 100 times the population now. Sorry, but the more crowded the environment and faster it moves, the more important proper regulation becomes, just like when a small woodworking shop moves to automated high-speed production of a modern manufacturing plant.
Our government is no more corrupt now, than then, in my opinion. As for the War on Drugs, creating the same type of lucrative criminal enterprises and competition as prohibition on alcohol did, you are right. It was officially lost when lost when the war was declared like other "war on" social programs to deal with problems.
Forget your rebellion. You had your chance at the Capital, as foolish and UN-American as it was, you gave away your plan and came out into the sunshine. We're watching you now.

 

[Oddball]

Not surrounding me. I favor background checks in all transfers (sale or gift) accept between direct family members and believe rifles have no place on the streets, yet you should be able to have any weapon you choose on your property to protect yourself and your family also should be able to hunt game with anything acceptable to the regulators in your state. That does not infringe. It is just well regulated.

What if regulators decide that hunting is "unacceptable" or that guns in general are?

That is just the point. Useless argument, as it patently isn't going to happen. I am not preparing for little birds or angels to fly out your ass when you voice your opinions or pronouncements either. Please let me know and post the video. I will consider giving more weight or respect at that time.

Before the Supreme Court intervened, Chicago and DC deemed all guns "unacceptable" in most applications. Said Court intervention was a 5-4 decision in both cases as well.

In other words, betting that the Court will block local bans is a very risky proposition. Heller and McDonald were only possible with a conservative Court. If it becomes liberal at some point, both rulings could be overturned potentially.

This is why you should be wary of what local regulators deem "unacceptable", unless you live in a deep red state.

No getting around the fact that we have a conservative court now, but some day in the nebulous future, we might not. Personally, I think that weapons for self defense should only be regulated at the Federal level and states or cities should not be allowed to set their own, though I do believe in there should be intelligent regulations governing their carry and use in all cities. That intelligent part is the rub. What is one person's intelligent is another person's radical crazy crap. Gun manufacturers do not favor any regulation, so neither does NRA anymore, as it often interferes with the way they do business. Criminals won't pay attention to any regulations. They never have paid attention to the law, hence being criminal. Mothers against guns (if there is a group of that name) or some other anti-gun group may very well wish for ban of all guns, but that crap ain't happening either. Somewhere in the middle is an unhappy medium, but you'll never find it if paranoid pro and anti gun loudmouths just stand around calling each other names with an all or nothing, winner take all attitude.

Yeah, most commies want central control.

.

I am a commie and commies are totally against central control.
Communism means communal, cooperative, and collective, which all requires or implies local control.

But basically every time a Communist group overthrows a government, they become more authoritarian than their predecessors -- like Lenin and Mao.

I understand that Marx himself has a lot in common with anarchists, but when his followers get power, they usually end up with more in common with Nazis.

Lenin and Mao were not at all even remotely communists.
Lenin was a paid German agent sent into Russia to take it out of WWI.
Stalin was a bank robber the revolutionaries used to raise cash, but he turned on them and killed them all, and established state capitalism that is nothing remotely like communism.
Mao was an agent of Stalinism as well.
Nothing remotely communist.

Nazis were National Socialist, which translates to anti-socialists.
They specifically were picked by the wealthy elite, military, and corporations, in order to murder or imprison all the communists and socialists.
Remember, Hitler won no elections, but was appointed by Hindenburg, who obviously was part of the wealthy elite.
Other than VW, did Hitler do anything remotely socialist?
Not at all. Not a single thing.
All the weapons Germany made during WWII, (except VW), were made for profit by capitalist companies.

All the weapons Germany made during WWII, (except VW), were made for profit by capitalist companies.

Under the direct orders of Hitler....And if you didn't play ball, you ended up like the Junkers Aircraft Company....Go ahead and do a web search on that one.

That's not market capitalism by a dam sight.

Your entire post reeks of the no true Scottsman fallacy.

 

[Rigby5]

I already mentioned 2 cities where guns were effectively banned in most situations - DC and Chicago. Thankfully, the Supreme Court intervened.

The way I understand it, still very difficult to get a permit in those places and other, where it should be a right for citizens with a clean background to get a permit with training, yet other states have constitutional carry of anything including ARs to walk the streets no questions asked. It's crazy going both direction.

I don't see what the problem with constitutional carry is. Most people who carry don't get in shootings.

And frankly, plenty of shootings have been stopped by others with guns.

I taught this crap for a lot of years. Without decent training you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you. Some people with repeated training are almost as bad. Just look at YouTube. Talk to military that have seen trained dumb asses accidentally fire their weapon into a sand barrel twice, just clearing it to got to chow, or the guys who after leaving the range, have ejected a live round at the cleaning table without a magazine even in the weapon, and this is people supposedly trained. Many have no respect for their weapons or presence of mind, and are dangerous, even on a range. No problem with even those folks having whatever weapons they want for home defense. There is a lot of stuff you can do in your home and it is your business that normal people would never do or would never be permitted to do out in public. This ain't 1790 and instead of 3 million citizen on the continent, we got over 300,000,000, much of it in overcrowded cities. 1790 rules don't cut it.

If that's the argument, then we should disarm cops. We've seen plenty of cases where they fire without any regard for bystanders.

Disarm the cops? No, your idea to disarm law enforcement is no good, and we, the American people will speak out against your foolishness at every turn. First you wanted to de-fund and abolish, but you failed and everybody kept their police force. Now you want them disarmed. You are nuts! It ain't happening. You want to try higher/stricter standards on police marksmanship weapons safety training? That would be something I could go for. Training works. Training to higher standards contributes to excellence and safety.

I disagree.
England proves you do not need most cops to be armed.
No one is going to try to rob police, and as long as they are unarmed, no one is ever going to try to harm them at all.
Almost all deaths of police now are due to traffic, not from criminals.
And the real danger is the other way around, where police have become a danger to society.
Just look at the thousands of innocents the police kill every year, like Breonna Taylor.
No-knock warrants are obviously illegal except in the case of a hostage.
Even what police do most of the time when no innocents are killed, is still wrong, like Prohibition or the War on Drugs.
Police have no such authority, and they should know better.
It should be obvious that if there is no victim, then it can't really be a crime.

Police are a rather recent invention, with almost no police existing over 100 years ago, and that worked much better.
Average people are much less trigger happy than mercenary police who are paid to harm others by corrupt politicians.

 

[Rigby5]

I already mentioned 2 cities where guns were effectively banned in most situations - DC and Chicago. Thankfully, the Supreme Court intervened.

The way I understand it, still very difficult to get a permit in those places and other, where it should be a right for citizens with a clean background to get a permit with training, yet other states have constitutional carry of anything including ARs to walk the streets no questions asked. It's crazy going both direction.

I don't see what the problem with constitutional carry is. Most people who carry don't get in shootings.

And frankly, plenty of shootings have been stopped by others with guns.

I taught this crap for a lot of years. Without decent training you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you. Some people with repeated training are almost as bad. Just look at YouTube. Talk to military that have seen trained dumb asses accidentally fire their weapon into a sand barrel twice, just clearing it to got to chow, or the guys who after leaving the range, have ejected a live round at the cleaning table without a magazine even in the weapon, and this is people supposedly trained. Many have no respect for their weapons or presence of mind, and are dangerous, even on a range. No problem with even those folks having whatever weapons they want for home defense. There is a lot of stuff you can do in your home and it is your business that normal people would never do or would never be permitted to do out in public. This ain't 1790 and instead of 3 million citizen on the continent, we got over 300,000,000, much of it in overcrowded cities. 1790 rules don't cut it.

How could 1790 rules not still cut it?
The number irresponsible people, accidents, and deaths will increase, the % stays the same.
It is not like it is so crowded not that one accidental shot will hit 2 people or something like that?
In fact, the need for arms by everyone is much greater now than in 1790 because there is less room for hunting, cottage industries, etc., so crime and corruption are much higher than they ever have been.
Back then our government was not so corrupt that it lied about Iraqi WMD in order to start a distant war of aggression over oil.
To me we seem more on the verge of needing another rebellion more than ever.
Back in 1790 they would never have even considered something so corrupt and insane as a "War on Drugs".

We have 100 times the population now. Sorry, but the more crowded the environment and faster it moves, the more important proper regulation becomes, just like when a small woodworking shop moves to automated high-speed production of a modern manufacturing plant.
Our government is no more corrupt now, than then, in my opinion. As for the War on Drugs, creating the same type of lucrative criminal enterprises and competition as prohibition on alcohol did, you are right. It was officially lost when lost when the war was declared like other "war on" social programs to deal with problems.
Forget your rebellion. You had your chance at the Capital, as foolish and UN-American as it was, you gave away your plan and came out into the sunshine. We're watching you now.

How does a population increase make it any better to give corrupt politicians more control over a band of paid mercenaries like police?
Increased population makes police worse, not better.
Police made more sense around 1800 when streets were deserted at night and you needed a night watch.

It is easy to prove government is much more corrupt now.
First of all, it more centralized, so then more impersonal.
Government is now using fines, fees, bail, asset forfeiture, etc. as a revenue source.
Government now controls the media, so then the wealthy can easily manipulate the public with lies.
For example, about Iraqi WMD.

And you have rebellion backwards.
The Trump supporters occupying congress were not at all rebellious.
Nor do I have anything remotely to do with them.
I am extremely left wing, not a Trump supporter.

 

[White 6]

I already mentioned 2 cities where guns were effectively banned in most situations - DC and Chicago. Thankfully, the Supreme Court intervened.

The way I understand it, still very difficult to get a permit in those places and other, where it should be a right for citizens with a clean background to get a permit with training, yet other states have constitutional carry of anything including ARs to walk the streets no questions asked. It's crazy going both direction.

I don't see what the problem with constitutional carry is. Most people who carry don't get in shootings.

And frankly, plenty of shootings have been stopped by others with guns.

I taught this crap for a lot of years. Without decent training you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you. Some people with repeated training are almost as bad. Just look at YouTube. Talk to military that have seen trained dumb asses accidentally fire their weapon into a sand barrel twice, just clearing it to got to chow, or the guys who after leaving the range, have ejected a live round at the cleaning table without a magazine even in the weapon, and this is people supposedly trained. Many have no respect for their weapons or presence of mind, and are dangerous, even on a range. No problem with even those folks having whatever weapons they want for home defense. There is a lot of stuff you can do in your home and it is your business that normal people would never do or would never be permitted to do out in public. This ain't 1790 and instead of 3 million citizen on the continent, we got over 300,000,000, much of it in overcrowded cities. 1790 rules don't cut it.

If that's the argument, then we should disarm cops. We've seen plenty of cases where they fire without any regard for bystanders.

Disarm the cops? No, your idea to disarm law enforcement is no good, and we, the American people will speak out against your foolishness at every turn. First you wanted to de-fund and abolish, but you failed and everybody kept their police force. Now you want them disarmed. You are nuts! It ain't happening. You want to try higher/stricter standards on police marksmanship weapons safety training? That would be something I could go for. Training works. Training to higher standards contributes to excellence and safety.

I disagree.
England proves you do not need most cops to be armed.
No one is going to try to rob police, and as long as they are unarmed, no one is ever going to try to harm them at all.
Almost all deaths of police now are due to traffic, not from criminals.
And the real danger is the other way around, where police have become a danger to society.
Just look at the thousands of innocents the police kill every year, like Breonna Taylor.
No-knock warrants are obviously illegal except in the case of a hostage.
Even what police do most of the time when no innocents are killed, is still wrong, like Prohibition or the War on Drugs.
Police have no such authority, and they should know better.
It should be obvious that if there is no victim, then it can't really be a crime.

Police are a rather recent invention, with almost no police existing over 100 years ago, and that worked much better.
Average people are much less trigger happy than mercenary police who are paid to harm others by corrupt politicians.

There might have been a time, a hundred years ago or so, when that might have been a possibility, but no more.

 

[Rigby5]

Not surrounding me. I favor background checks in all transfers (sale or gift) accept between direct family members and believe rifles have no place on the streets, yet you should be able to have any weapon you choose on your property to protect yourself and your family also should be able to hunt game with anything acceptable to the regulators in your state. That does not infringe. It is just well regulated.

What if regulators decide that hunting is "unacceptable" or that guns in general are?

That is just the point. Useless argument, as it patently isn't going to happen. I am not preparing for little birds or angels to fly out your ass when you voice your opinions or pronouncements either. Please let me know and post the video. I will consider giving more weight or respect at that time.

Before the Supreme Court intervened, Chicago and DC deemed all guns "unacceptable" in most applications. Said Court intervention was a 5-4 decision in both cases as well.

In other words, betting that the Court will block local bans is a very risky proposition. Heller and McDonald were only possible with a conservative Court. If it becomes liberal at some point, both rulings could be overturned potentially.

This is why you should be wary of what local regulators deem "unacceptable", unless you live in a deep red state.

No getting around the fact that we have a conservative court now, but some day in the nebulous future, we might not. Personally, I think that weapons for self defense should only be regulated at the Federal level and states or cities should not be allowed to set their own, though I do believe in there should be intelligent regulations governing their carry and use in all cities. That intelligent part is the rub. What is one person's intelligent is another person's radical crazy crap. Gun manufacturers do not favor any regulation, so neither does NRA anymore, as it often interferes with the way they do business. Criminals won't pay attention to any regulations. They never have paid attention to the law, hence being criminal. Mothers against guns (if there is a group of that name) or some other anti-gun group may very well wish for ban of all guns, but that crap ain't happening either. Somewhere in the middle is an unhappy medium, but you'll never find it if paranoid pro and anti gun loudmouths just stand around calling each other names with an all or nothing, winner take all attitude.

Yeah, most commies want central control.

.

I am a commie and commies are totally against central control.
Communism means communal, cooperative, and collective, which all requires or implies local control.

But basically every time a Communist group overthrows a government, they become more authoritarian than their predecessors -- like Lenin and Mao.

I understand that Marx himself has a lot in common with anarchists, but when his followers get power, they usually end up with more in common with Nazis.

Lenin and Mao were not at all even remotely communists.
Lenin was a paid German agent sent into Russia to take it out of WWI.
Stalin was a bank robber the revolutionaries used to raise cash, but he turned on them and killed them all, and established state capitalism that is nothing remotely like communism.
Mao was an agent of Stalinism as well.
Nothing remotely communist.

Nazis were National Socialist, which translates to anti-socialists.
They specifically were picked by the wealthy elite, military, and corporations, in order to murder or imprison all the communists and socialists.
Remember, Hitler won no elections, but was appointed by Hindenburg, who obviously was part of the wealthy elite.
Other than VW, did Hitler do anything remotely socialist?
Not at all. Not a single thing.
All the weapons Germany made during WWII, (except VW), were made for profit by capitalist companies.

All the weapons Germany made during WWII, (except VW), were made for profit by capitalist companies.

Under the direct orders of Hitler....And if you didn't play ball, you ended up like the Junkers Aircraft Company....Go ahead and do a web search on that one.

That's not market capitalism by a dam sight.

Your entire post reeks of the no true Scottsman fallacy.

View attachment 476102

What happened to Junkers was because he was a socialist, not because of any socialism on the part of Hitler.
Hitler was anti-socialist.

{... The Nazi party came to power in Germany in 1933, and all German aviation development was shifted away from long-range civil aircraft types. Hugo Junkers himself was forced to transfer all his patents to the Nazis, who doubted that Junkers (a socialist and pacifist) would comply with their plans. Shortly after, his holdings were expropriated and he was placed under house arrest. The company that had pioneered commercial aviation development for at least a decade was relegated to relatively small one- and two-engined military design competitions issued by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) the "Reich Aviation Ministry". Two exceptions to this were the Ju 52 and the Ju 90. ...}

 

[Rigby5]

I already mentioned 2 cities where guns were effectively banned in most situations - DC and Chicago. Thankfully, the Supreme Court intervened.

The way I understand it, still very difficult to get a permit in those places and other, where it should be a right for citizens with a clean background to get a permit with training, yet other states have constitutional carry of anything including ARs to walk the streets no questions asked. It's crazy going both direction.

I don't see what the problem with constitutional carry is. Most people who carry don't get in shootings.

And frankly, plenty of shootings have been stopped by others with guns.

I taught this crap for a lot of years. Without decent training you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you. Some people with repeated training are almost as bad. Just look at YouTube. Talk to military that have seen trained dumb asses accidentally fire their weapon into a sand barrel twice, just clearing it to got to chow, or the guys who after leaving the range, have ejected a live round at the cleaning table without a magazine even in the weapon, and this is people supposedly trained. Many have no respect for their weapons or presence of mind, and are dangerous, even on a range. No problem with even those folks having whatever weapons they want for home defense. There is a lot of stuff you can do in your home and it is your business that normal people would never do or would never be permitted to do out in public. This ain't 1790 and instead of 3 million citizen on the continent, we got over 300,000,000, much of it in overcrowded cities. 1790 rules don't cut it.

If that's the argument, then we should disarm cops. We've seen plenty of cases where they fire without any regard for bystanders.

Disarm the cops? No, your idea to disarm law enforcement is no good, and we, the American people will speak out against your foolishness at every turn. First you wanted to de-fund and abolish, but you failed and everybody kept their police force. Now you want them disarmed. You are nuts! It ain't happening. You want to try higher/stricter standards on police marksmanship weapons safety training? That would be something I could go for. Training works. Training to higher standards contributes to excellence and safety.

I disagree.
England proves you do not need most cops to be armed.
No one is going to try to rob police, and as long as they are unarmed, no one is ever going to try to harm them at all.
Almost all deaths of police now are due to traffic, not from criminals.
And the real danger is the other way around, where police have become a danger to society.
Just look at the thousands of innocents the police kill every year, like Breonna Taylor.
No-knock warrants are obviously illegal except in the case of a hostage.
Even what police do most of the time when no innocents are killed, is still wrong, like Prohibition or the War on Drugs.
Police have no such authority, and they should know better.
It should be obvious that if there is no victim, then it can't really be a crime.

Police are a rather recent invention, with almost no police existing over 100 years ago, and that worked much better.
Average people are much less trigger happy than mercenary police who are paid to harm others by corrupt politicians.

There might have been a time, a hundred years ago or so, when that might have been a possibility, but no more.

There is no choice.
Governments always become more corrupt over time, and revolution is always inevitable.
Look at how much more corrupt government is already.
In 1800 there were no federal weapons laws, no federal health laws, no federal drug laws, etc.
There is no legal basis for any federal weapons, health, or drug laws.
They almost tried to make 55 mph a federal speed limit.
Eventually they will try to make everything federal law.
Imagine how corrupt federal parking tickets would be?
And it is way beyond where we should already have rebelled.
We should not have killed 3 million Vietnamese, killed half a million Iraqi, incarcerated millions on drug charges, etc.
Things already are way beyond what is legal or sensible.

 

[Oddball]

Not surrounding me. I favor background checks in all transfers (sale or gift) accept between direct family members and believe rifles have no place on the streets, yet you should be able to have any weapon you choose on your property to protect yourself and your family also should be able to hunt game with anything acceptable to the regulators in your state. That does not infringe. It is just well regulated.

What if regulators decide that hunting is "unacceptable" or that guns in general are?

That is just the point. Useless argument, as it patently isn't going to happen. I am not preparing for little birds or angels to fly out your ass when you voice your opinions or pronouncements either. Please let me know and post the video. I will consider giving more weight or respect at that time.

Before the Supreme Court intervened, Chicago and DC deemed all guns "unacceptable" in most applications. Said Court intervention was a 5-4 decision in both cases as well.

In other words, betting that the Court will block local bans is a very risky proposition. Heller and McDonald were only possible with a conservative Court. If it becomes liberal at some point, both rulings could be overturned potentially.

This is why you should be wary of what local regulators deem "unacceptable", unless you live in a deep red state.

No getting around the fact that we have a conservative court now, but some day in the nebulous future, we might not. Personally, I think that weapons for self defense should only be regulated at the Federal level and states or cities should not be allowed to set their own, though I do believe in there should be intelligent regulations governing their carry and use in all cities. That intelligent part is the rub. What is one person's intelligent is another person's radical crazy crap. Gun manufacturers do not favor any regulation, so neither does NRA anymore, as it often interferes with the way they do business. Criminals won't pay attention to any regulations. They never have paid attention to the law, hence being criminal. Mothers against guns (if there is a group of that name) or some other anti-gun group may very well wish for ban of all guns, but that crap ain't happening either. Somewhere in the middle is an unhappy medium, but you'll never find it if paranoid pro and anti gun loudmouths just stand around calling each other names with an all or nothing, winner take all attitude.

Yeah, most commies want central control.

.

I am a commie and commies are totally against central control.
Communism means communal, cooperative, and collective, which all requires or implies local control.

But basically every time a Communist group overthrows a government, they become more authoritarian than their predecessors -- like Lenin and Mao.

I understand that Marx himself has a lot in common with anarchists, but when his followers get power, they usually end up with more in common with Nazis.

Lenin and Mao were not at all even remotely communists.
Lenin was a paid German agent sent into Russia to take it out of WWI.
Stalin was a bank robber the revolutionaries used to raise cash, but he turned on them and killed them all, and established state capitalism that is nothing remotely like communism.
Mao was an agent of Stalinism as well.
Nothing remotely communist.

Nazis were National Socialist, which translates to anti-socialists.
They specifically were picked by the wealthy elite, military, and corporations, in order to murder or imprison all the communists and socialists.
Remember, Hitler won no elections, but was appointed by Hindenburg, who obviously was part of the wealthy elite.
Other than VW, did Hitler do anything remotely socialist?
Not at all. Not a single thing.
All the weapons Germany made during WWII, (except VW), were made for profit by capitalist companies.

All the weapons Germany made during WWII, (except VW), were made for profit by capitalist companies.

Under the direct orders of Hitler....And if you didn't play ball, you ended up like the Junkers Aircraft Company....Go ahead and do a web search on that one.

That's not market capitalism by a dam sight.

Your entire post reeks of the no true Scottsman fallacy.

View attachment 476102

What happened to Junkers was because he was a socialist, not because of any socialism on the part of Hitler.
Hitler was anti-socialist.

{... The Nazi party came to power in Germany in 1933, and all German aviation development was shifted away from long-range civil aircraft types. Hugo Junkers himself was forced to transfer all his patents to the Nazis, who doubted that Junkers (a socialist and pacifist) would comply with their plans. Shortly after, his holdings were expropriated and he was placed under house arrest. The company that had pioneered commercial aviation development for at least a decade was relegated to relatively small one- and two-engined military design competitions issued by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) the "Reich Aviation Ministry". Two exceptions to this were the Ju 52 and the Ju 90. ...}

Right....Hitler seized the aircraft works and nationalized it.

Again, NOT market capitalism.

 

[White 6]

I already mentioned 2 cities where guns were effectively banned in most situations - DC and Chicago. Thankfully, the Supreme Court intervened.

The way I understand it, still very difficult to get a permit in those places and other, where it should be a right for citizens with a clean background to get a permit with training, yet other states have constitutional carry of anything including ARs to walk the streets no questions asked. It's crazy going both direction.

I don't see what the problem with constitutional carry is. Most people who carry don't get in shootings.

And frankly, plenty of shootings have been stopped by others with guns.

I taught this crap for a lot of years. Without decent training you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you. Some people with repeated training are almost as bad. Just look at YouTube. Talk to military that have seen trained dumb asses accidentally fire their weapon into a sand barrel twice, just clearing it to got to chow, or the guys who after leaving the range, have ejected a live round at the cleaning table without a magazine even in the weapon, and this is people supposedly trained. Many have no respect for their weapons or presence of mind, and are dangerous, even on a range. No problem with even those folks having whatever weapons they want for home defense. There is a lot of stuff you can do in your home and it is your business that normal people would never do or would never be permitted to do out in public. This ain't 1790 and instead of 3 million citizen on the continent, we got over 300,000,000, much of it in overcrowded cities. 1790 rules don't cut it.

How could 1790 rules not still cut it?
The number irresponsible people, accidents, and deaths will increase, the % stays the same.
It is not like it is so crowded not that one accidental shot will hit 2 people or something like that?
In fact, the need for arms by everyone is much greater now than in 1790 because there is less room for hunting, cottage industries, etc., so crime and corruption are much higher than they ever have been.
Back then our government was not so corrupt that it lied about Iraqi WMD in order to start a distant war of aggression over oil.
To me we seem more on the verge of needing another rebellion more than ever.
Back in 1790 they would never have even considered something so corrupt and insane as a "War on Drugs".

We have 100 times the population now. Sorry, but the more crowded the environment and faster it moves, the more important proper regulation becomes, just like when a small woodworking shop moves to automated high-speed production of a modern manufacturing plant.
Our government is no more corrupt now, than then, in my opinion. As for the War on Drugs, creating the same type of lucrative criminal enterprises and competition as prohibition on alcohol did, you are right. It was officially lost when lost when the war was declared like other "war on" social programs to deal with problems.
Forget your rebellion. You had your chance at the Capital, as foolish and UN-American as it was, you gave away your plan and came out into the sunshine. We're watching you now.

How does a population increase make it any better to give corrupt politicians more control over a band of paid mercenaries like police?
Increased population makes police worse, not better.
Police made more sense around 1800 when streets were deserted at night and you needed a night watch.

It is easy to prove government is much more corrupt now.
First of all, it more centralized, so then more impersonal.
Government is now using fines, fees, bail, asset forfeiture, etc. as a revenue source.
Government now controls the media, so then the wealthy can easily manipulate the public with lies.
For example, about Iraqi WMD.

And you have rebellion backwards.
The Trump supporters occupying congress were not at all rebellious.
Nor do I have anything remotely to do with them.
I am extremely left wing, not a Trump supporter.

Glad you are not trumpian, but the opposite extreme is no better.
The foolish trumpian attack on congress to overthrow the free election was definitely rebellious. It failed.
I still support the police. You want vigilantism instead, good luck voting it in locally. It will go over about like your de fund and dissolve option. Get real.

 

[White 6]

I already mentioned 2 cities where guns were effectively banned in most situations - DC and Chicago. Thankfully, the Supreme Court intervened.

The way I understand it, still very difficult to get a permit in those places and other, where it should be a right for citizens with a clean background to get a permit with training, yet other states have constitutional carry of anything including ARs to walk the streets no questions asked. It's crazy going both direction.

I don't see what the problem with constitutional carry is. Most people who carry don't get in shootings.

And frankly, plenty of shootings have been stopped by others with guns.

I taught this crap for a lot of years. Without decent training you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you. Some people with repeated training are almost as bad. Just look at YouTube. Talk to military that have seen trained dumb asses accidentally fire their weapon into a sand barrel twice, just clearing it to got to chow, or the guys who after leaving the range, have ejected a live round at the cleaning table without a magazine even in the weapon, and this is people supposedly trained. Many have no respect for their weapons or presence of mind, and are dangerous, even on a range. No problem with even those folks having whatever weapons they want for home defense. There is a lot of stuff you can do in your home and it is your business that normal people would never do or would never be permitted to do out in public. This ain't 1790 and instead of 3 million citizen on the continent, we got over 300,000,000, much of it in overcrowded cities. 1790 rules don't cut it.

If that's the argument, then we should disarm cops. We've seen plenty of cases where they fire without any regard for bystanders.

Disarm the cops? No, your idea to disarm law enforcement is no good, and we, the American people will speak out against your foolishness at every turn. First you wanted to de-fund and abolish, but you failed and everybody kept their police force. Now you want them disarmed. You are nuts! It ain't happening. You want to try higher/stricter standards on police marksmanship weapons safety training? That would be something I could go for. Training works. Training to higher standards contributes to excellence and safety.

I disagree.
England proves you do not need most cops to be armed.
No one is going to try to rob police, and as long as they are unarmed, no one is ever going to try to harm them at all.
Almost all deaths of police now are due to traffic, not from criminals.
And the real danger is the other way around, where police have become a danger to society.
Just look at the thousands of innocents the police kill every year, like Breonna Taylor.
No-knock warrants are obviously illegal except in the case of a hostage.
Even what police do most of the time when no innocents are killed, is still wrong, like Prohibition or the War on Drugs.
Police have no such authority, and they should know better.
It should be obvious that if there is no victim, then it can't really be a crime.

Police are a rather recent invention, with almost no police existing over 100 years ago, and that worked much better.
Average people are much less trigger happy than mercenary police who are paid to harm others by corrupt politicians.

There might have been a time, a hundred years ago or so, when that might have been a possibility, but no more.

There is no choice.
Governments always become more corrupt over time, and revolution is always inevitable.
Look at how much more corrupt government is already.
In 1800 there were no federal weapons laws, no federal health laws, no federal drug laws, etc.
There is no legal basis for any federal weapons, health, or drug laws.
They almost tried to make 55 mph a federal speed limit.
Eventually they will try to make everything federal law.
Imagine how corrupt federal parking tickets would be?
And it is way beyond where we should already have rebelled.
We should not have killed 3 million Vietnamese, killed half a million Iraqi, incarcerated millions on drug charges, etc.
Things already are way beyond what is legal or sensible.

You cannot go back to the 1800s. Heck, the republicans cannot even go back the 1950s.
This experiment in representative republic democracy is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing, as the design was and is sound. The forces of your extreme left and the equally deluded extreme right will continue to loudly cancel each other out. the centrist point of view point forward, with only the minor pendulum swings tolerated for long.

 

[Utilitarian]

I taught this crap for a lot of years. Without decent training you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you. Some people with repeated training are almost as bad. Just look at YouTube. Talk to military that have seen trained dumb asses accidentally fire their weapon into a sand barrel twice, just clearing it to got to chow, or the guys who after leaving the range, have ejected a live round at the cleaning table without a magazine even in the weapon, and this is people supposedly trained. Many have no respect for their weapons or presence of mind, and are dangerous, even on a range. No problem with even those folks having whatever weapons they want for home defense. There is a lot of stuff you can do in your home and it is your business that normal people would never do or would never be permitted to do out in public. This ain't 1790 and instead of 3 million citizen on the continent, we got over 300,000,000, much of it in overcrowded cities. 1790 rules don't cut it.

If that's the argument, then we should disarm cops. We've seen plenty of cases where they fire without any regard for bystanders.

Disarm the cops? No, your idea to disarm law enforcement is no good, and we, the American people will speak out against your foolishness at every turn. First you wanted to de-fund and abolish, but you failed and everybody kept their police force. Now you want them disarmed. You are nuts! It ain't happening. You want to try higher/stricter standards on police marksmanship weapons safety training? That would be something I could go for. Training works. Training to higher standards contributes to excellence and safety.

My point was that, using your own criteria, cops are often equally as reckless with guns as other individuals are. I personally don't want to disarm the cops or the public.

 

[Utilitarian]

Not surrounding me. I favor background checks in all transfers (sale or gift) accept between direct family members and believe rifles have no place on the streets, yet you should be able to have any weapon you choose on your property to protect yourself and your family also should be able to hunt game with anything acceptable to the regulators in your state. That does not infringe. It is just well regulated.

What if regulators decide that hunting is "unacceptable" or that guns in general are?

That is just the point. Useless argument, as it patently isn't going to happen. I am not preparing for little birds or angels to fly out your ass when you voice your opinions or pronouncements either. Please let me know and post the video. I will consider giving more weight or respect at that time.

Before the Supreme Court intervened, Chicago and DC deemed all guns "unacceptable" in most applications. Said Court intervention was a 5-4 decision in both cases as well.

In other words, betting that the Court will block local bans is a very risky proposition. Heller and McDonald were only possible with a conservative Court. If it becomes liberal at some point, both rulings could be overturned potentially.

This is why you should be wary of what local regulators deem "unacceptable", unless you live in a deep red state.

No getting around the fact that we have a conservative court now, but some day in the nebulous future, we might not. Personally, I think that weapons for self defense should only be regulated at the Federal level and states or cities should not be allowed to set their own, though I do believe in there should be intelligent regulations governing their carry and use in all cities. That intelligent part is the rub. What is one person's intelligent is another person's radical crazy crap. Gun manufacturers do not favor any regulation, so neither does NRA anymore, as it often interferes with the way they do business. Criminals won't pay attention to any regulations. They never have paid attention to the law, hence being criminal. Mothers against guns (if there is a group of that name) or some other anti-gun group may very well wish for ban of all guns, but that crap ain't happening either. Somewhere in the middle is an unhappy medium, but you'll never find it if paranoid pro and anti gun loudmouths just stand around calling each other names with an all or nothing, winner take all attitude.

Yeah, most commies want central control.

.

I am a commie and commies are totally against central control.
Communism means communal, cooperative, and collective, which all requires or implies local control.

But basically every time a Communist group overthrows a government, they become more authoritarian than their predecessors -- like Lenin and Mao.

I understand that Marx himself has a lot in common with anarchists, but when his followers get power, they usually end up with more in common with Nazis.

Lenin and Mao were not at all even remotely communists.
Lenin was a paid German agent sent into Russia to take it out of WWI.
Stalin was a bank robber the revolutionaries used to raise cash, but he turned on them and killed them all, and established state capitalism that is nothing remotely like communism.
Mao was an agent of Stalinism as well.
Nothing remotely communist.

Nazis were National Socialist, which translates to anti-socialists.
They specifically were picked by the wealthy elite, military, and corporations, in order to murder or imprison all the communists and socialists.
Remember, Hitler won no elections, but was appointed by Hindenburg, who obviously was part of the wealthy elite.
Other than VW, did Hitler do anything remotely socialist?
Not at all. Not a single thing.
All the weapons Germany made during WWII, (except VW), were made for profit by capitalist companies.

And yet, Mao's legacy is the CCP -- the most powerful political party with Communist in its name.

The point is this -- if you look at every regime that has risen to power using the Communist banner, it has ended up authoritarian. Why should anyone expect any current Communist political group not in power yet to behave differently with power?

You can admire Marx's principles if you like, but just realize that very few people have stayed true to those principles.

 

[Utilitarian]

How could 1790 rules not still cut it?
The number irresponsible people, accidents, and deaths will increase, the % stays the same.
It is not like it is so crowded not that one accidental shot will hit 2 people or something like that?
In fact, the need for arms by everyone is much greater now than in 1790 because there is less room for hunting, cottage industries, etc., so crime and corruption are much higher than they ever have been.
Back then our government was not so corrupt that it lied about Iraqi WMD in order to start a distant war of aggression over oil.
To me we seem more on the verge of needing another rebellion more than ever.
Back in 1790 they would never have even considered something so corrupt and insane as a "War on Drugs".

We have 100 times the population now. Sorry, but the more crowded the environment and faster it moves, the more important proper regulation becomes, just like when a small woodworking shop moves to automated high-speed production of a modern manufacturing plant.
Our government is no more corrupt now, than then, in my opinion. As for the War on Drugs, creating the same type of lucrative criminal enterprises and competition as prohibition on alcohol did, you are right. It was officially lost when lost when the war was declared like other "war on" social programs to deal with problems.
Forget your rebellion. You had your chance at the Capital, as foolish and UN-American as it was, you gave away your plan and came out into the sunshine. We're watching you now.

The bigger government gets, the more corrupt it gets.

 

[Utilitarian]

Disarm the cops? No, your idea to disarm law enforcement is no good, and we, the American people will speak out against your foolishness at every turn. First you wanted to de-fund and abolish, but you failed and everybody kept their police force. Now you want them disarmed. You are nuts! It ain't happening. You want to try higher/stricter standards on police marksmanship weapons safety training? That would be something I could go for. Training works. Training to higher standards contributes to excellence and safety.

I disagree.
England proves you do not need most cops to be armed.
No one is going to try to rob police, and as long as they are unarmed, no one is ever going to try to harm them at all.
Almost all deaths of police now are due to traffic, not from criminals.
And the real danger is the other way around, where police have become a danger to society.
Just look at the thousands of innocents the police kill every year, like Breonna Taylor.
No-knock warrants are obviously illegal except in the case of a hostage.
Even what police do most of the time when no innocents are killed, is still wrong, like Prohibition or the War on Drugs.
Police have no such authority, and they should know better.
It should be obvious that if there is no victim, then it can't really be a crime.

Police are a rather recent invention, with almost no police existing over 100 years ago, and that worked much better.
Average people are much less trigger happy than mercenary police who are paid to harm others by corrupt politicians.

The reason why disarming cops here wouldn't work is because our criminals are well armed.

 

[Rambunctious]

....are haranguing you - innocent law abiding citizens- about how you need to have your 2nd Amendment right eroded and abridged.

View attachment 471510

They aren't surrounding me, and I don't think you whack-jobs should be allowed to have slingshots.

Fortunately, what you think is immaterial to my rights Between the plandemic and crazy mass shooters, don't you think you should be under your bed just now? Oh, and there are about 100 million of us "whack-jobs". Now THAT'S an "inconvenient truth"

There's no where near a hundred million of you wackos.

Yes there are way more of us than you could ever understand...

 

[Utilitarian]

All the weapons Germany made during WWII, (except VW), were made for profit by capitalist companies.

Under the direct orders of Hitler....And if you didn't play ball, you ended up like the Junkers Aircraft Company....Go ahead and do a web search on that one.

That's not market capitalism by a dam sight.

Your entire post reeks of the no true Scottsman fallacy.

View attachment 476102

What happened to Junkers was because he was a socialist, not because of any socialism on the part of Hitler.
Hitler was anti-socialist.

{... The Nazi party came to power in Germany in 1933, and all German aviation development was shifted away from long-range civil aircraft types. Hugo Junkers himself was forced to transfer all his patents to the Nazis, who doubted that Junkers (a socialist and pacifist) would comply with their plans. Shortly after, his holdings were expropriated and he was placed under house arrest. The company that had pioneered commercial aviation development for at least a decade was relegated to relatively small one- and two-engined military design competitions issued by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) the "Reich Aviation Ministry". Two exceptions to this were the Ju 52 and the Ju 90. ...}

Hitler was best described as a corporatist authoritarian, but again, he used a socialist party to enter power.

Once again, it doesn't matter what the supposed principles of the party are when a tyrant grabs hold. Look at how various Democrats and Republicans betray their parties' ideals when they reach power. It doesn't mean that they can be completely separated from the ideologies they used for support.

Generally speaking, utopian ideologies are among the worst when it comes to enabling tyrants. This is true for both socialism and communism, but of course, there are other ideologies that do the same.