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

[White 6]

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.

Well, let's cut to the chase. What would you define as "intelligent" regulations?

Check my posts from yesterday. Not going to rewrite today, but you can look up any post I've ever posted. Basically, progun, pro background check, pro permits to carry Preferring concealed, like me) and all citizens should have the right to get permit and carry under same rules, no matter the state or city, against open carry rifles and shotguns in city limits, favor anything (absolutely anything) goes on your own property for defense as long as your bullets stay on your property.

I can't say I agree with the last few bits, but overall, your stance seems to match several blue states. If you live in one already, then it sounds like you're where you would prefer to be.

If you're in a red state, then I guess you could move.

No. I am in Tennessee, decidedly a Red state. I don't model my views on what other states do on weapons control, especially not blue states. Like somebody was pointing out, places like Chicago, New York (the whole state), California and Washington, DC (although not a state and shouldn't be) are pretty restrictive on permit carry rights and do not even recognize mine thought, although I thoroughly trained to classroom and range standards overseen by state licensed instructor, prescibed course of study, instruction and testing, along with background check through state TBI and Federal DHS. It was a good course and range run to good control and safety standards. I think everybody should avail themselves of the opportunity, familiarize and learn in a control environment, be aware of all applicable laws and have access to the standardized training a certification process in every state and city in the country. Think how seldom you hear of licensed permit holder shoot anybody that didn't need shooting even by accident. Don't worry about me. Worry about the bozos that use their stimulus check to buy an AR-15 and a couple of semi-automatic pistols in a constitutional carry state, like the 17 year old that got somebody else to buy his in another state, then went out of state where he could own it, to pick it up and go to a riot. Or that Opey looking 21 year old north of Atlanta, who bought his and shortly after started shoot women in massage parlors, or the guy in Colorado last week that bought an AR (I think with his stimulus, but not sure) then walked into a supermarket and killed 10 people. Don't forget the nut ball in texas where you can walk around with a AR in town, no questions asked, no permit required and then walked across the parking lot, and started shoot people at Walmart. I don't think he even went through a background check. Lots of situations to get around background checks. I'll have another weapon, that I have put together from 4 standardized manufacturers in 3 or 4 states without anybody asking me anything but my email address and credit card number. Everything assembled by me and when the last two part arrive (one shipped yesterday the other scheduled to ship in less than 2 weeks, I'll have a brand new, high end, custom made AR-15 style rifle that you could buy off the shelf for twice the price, without a single part going through a registered gun dealer or requiring a background check. Go figure.

 

[Utilitarian]

No. I am in Tennessee, decidedly a Red state. I don't model my views on what other states do on weapons control, especially not blue states. Like somebody was pointing out, places like Chicago, New York (the whole state), California and Washington, DC (although not a state and shouldn't be) are pretty restrictive on permit carry rights and do not even recognize mine thought, although I thoroughly trained to classroom and range standards overseen by state licensed instructor, prescibed course of study, instruction and testing, along with background check through state TBI and Federal DHS. It was a good course and range run to good control and safety standards. I think everybody should avail themselves of the opportunity, familiarize and learn in a control environment, be aware of all applicable laws and have access to the standardized training a certification process in every state and city in the country. Think how seldom you hear of licensed permit holder shoot anybody that didn't need shooting even by accident. Don't worry about me. Worry about the bozos that use their stimulus check to buy an AR-15 and a couple of semi-automatic pistols in a constitutional carry state, like the 17 year old that got somebody else to buy his in another state, then went out of state where he could own it, to pick it up and go to a riot. Or that Opey looking 21 year old north of Atlanta, who bought his and shortly after started shoot women in massage parlors, or the guy in Colorado last week that bought an AR (I think with his stimulus, but not sure) then walked into a supermarket and killed 10 people. Don't forget the nut ball in texas where you can walk around with a AR in town, no questions asked, no permit required and then walked across the parking lot, and started shoot people at Walmart. I don't think he even went through a background check. Lots of situations to get around background checks. I'll have another weapon, that I have put together from 4 standardized manufacturers in 3 or 4 states without anybody asking me anything but my email address and credit card number. Everything assembled by me and when the last two part arrive (one shipped yesterday the other scheduled to ship in less than 2 weeks, I'll have a brand new, high end, custom made AR-15 style rifle that you could buy off the shelf for twice the price, without a single part going through a registered gun dealer or requiring a background check. Go figure.

If you understand how someone with skill and resources can build their own weapon outside of the official system, then you should be in favor of fewer restrictions, because ultimately, all restrictions do is limit people with less money.

At its core, gun control is classist. And historically, it has also targeted minorities more than whites.

Your experiences should also make it clear that safety doesn't come from government or regulation but preparedness.

 

[Nostra]

 

[White 6]

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?

Exactly where in the world has that happened? Who has even suggested such a thing.

You fools keep making up "what if" scenarios that are both unrealistic and impossible to enforce, and then act as if they're about to happen.

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.

 

[Utilitarian]

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.

 

[White 6]

No. I am in Tennessee, decidedly a Red state. I don't model my views on what other states do on weapons control, especially not blue states. Like somebody was pointing out, places like Chicago, New York (the whole state), California and Washington, DC (although not a state and shouldn't be) are pretty restrictive on permit carry rights and do not even recognize mine thought, although I thoroughly trained to classroom and range standards overseen by state licensed instructor, prescibed course of study, instruction and testing, along with background check through state TBI and Federal DHS. It was a good course and range run to good control and safety standards. I think everybody should avail themselves of the opportunity, familiarize and learn in a control environment, be aware of all applicable laws and have access to the standardized training a certification process in every state and city in the country. Think how seldom you hear of licensed permit holder shoot anybody that didn't need shooting even by accident. Don't worry about me. Worry about the bozos that use their stimulus check to buy an AR-15 and a couple of semi-automatic pistols in a constitutional carry state, like the 17 year old that got somebody else to buy his in another state, then went out of state where he could own it, to pick it up and go to a riot. Or that Opey looking 21 year old north of Atlanta, who bought his and shortly after started shoot women in massage parlors, or the guy in Colorado last week that bought an AR (I think with his stimulus, but not sure) then walked into a supermarket and killed 10 people. Don't forget the nut ball in texas where you can walk around with a AR in town, no questions asked, no permit required and then walked across the parking lot, and started shoot people at Walmart. I don't think he even went through a background check. Lots of situations to get around background checks. I'll have another weapon, that I have put together from 4 standardized manufacturers in 3 or 4 states without anybody asking me anything but my email address and credit card number. Everything assembled by me and when the last two part arrive (one shipped yesterday the other scheduled to ship in less than 2 weeks, I'll have a brand new, high end, custom made AR-15 style rifle that you could buy off the shelf for twice the price, without a single part going through a registered gun dealer or requiring a background check. Go figure.

If you understand how someone with skill and resources can build their own weapon outside of the official system, then you should be in favor of fewer restrictions, because ultimately, all restrictions do is limit people with less money.

At its core, gun control is classist. And historically, it has also targeted minorities more than whites.

Your experiences should also make it clear that safety doesn't come from government or regulation but preparedness.

Doesn't bother me. I do not bleed for the poor, many of which bring low income on themselves by not learning in school, not applying themself, preferring a good time, their choices, being here illegally, Jail-time and criminal record, psychological/sociological problems,literally a host of reasons that I cannot deal with, have personally turn people down for or terminated people for.
I have no reason to advocate for people that cannot progress, adjust or sociologically meet the needs and demand of society, to have weapons and carry them on the street. You got the wrong guy. Go hunt a bleeding heart liberal for that one.

 

[Utilitarian]

Doesn't bother me. I do not bleed for the poor, many of which bring low income on themselves by not learning in school, not applying themself, preferring a good time, their choices, being here illegally, Jail-time and criminal record, psychological/sociological problems,literally a host of reasons that I cannot deal with, have personally turn people down for or terminated people for.
I have no reason to advocate for people that cannot progress, adjust or sociologically meet the needs and demand of society, to have weapons and carry them on the street. You got the wrong guy. Go hunt a bleeding heart liberal for that one.

So safety isn't your focus either.

 

[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.

 

[OKTexas]

....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.

Really, the FBI reported that there were 8.4 million new gun owners just last year. The NICS system logged more than 21 million background checks in 2020. The fact is you have no clue how many gun owners are out here.

.

I wasn't talking about gun owners. I was referring to RWNJ whack-a-doodles.

So what are the objective standards to determine who these "whack-a-doodles" are?

.

Threatening to shoot people is a good start.

That disqualifies about half of the local republicans, BTW.

And about 80% of the local commiecrats.

.

What's a commiecrat?

Commies pretending to be democrats. Now the party is full of Alinski and Cloward and Piven acolytes.

.

The only one of those people I've even heard of is Alinsky, and that only because you and your conservitard buddies talk about him all the time.

Yep, Alinski invented the cancel culture. His philosophy was not to attack institutions, but individuals, by Isolation, Diminishment and Destruction of the individual. Sound familiar?

Cloward and Piven developed a strategy to overload and eventually collapse the welfare system, hoping a guaranteed income would result. You're seeing a variation of it at play on the SW border right now.

.

Cancel culture is a RWNJ fantasy.

As previously stated, I've never even heard of the other two

Fantasy? Tell that to the former CEO at Mozilla, or the young lady that was pushed out of Teen Vogue before her first day of work. BTW, those two events were years and thousands of canceled people apart.

Is your fucking google broke? Look it up.

.

You're talking about "consequence culture". That's entirely different.

Justice would be people like you fired and blacklisted for your religious/political beliefs, or some dumb ass thing you said as a kid.

.

You can't fire me, I own the company.

However, what you're describing has happened many times.to many people. Blacks, hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, atheists, muslims, any one you can think of that isn't white male and christian has been dealing with this for centuries.

You're pissed because some.of those folk who traditionally haven't had a say what's "right" or acceptable suddenly do and now some few folks are suffering consequences for saying offensive things.

Tough shit, kid. Most of the rest of the world has been dealing with that forever.

.......muslims treat women as second class citizens and force them to wear head and body coverings...you twit.....

So do conservative evangelicals. There is literally no difference between how evangicals treat women and muslims treatment of women - long sleeves, skirts to knees, viriginity pledges, subserviance to their husbands.

Yeah...there is. Are you this stupid in real life or only when you post.

How many evangelical women are walking around covering their heads, or covering their entire bodies? Entire countries where they will be beaten or imprisoned if they take off the veils....you dumb shit.

Pentecostals.

Oh bullshit, I was raised in a Pentecostal church in the 50s & 60s and the women didn't dress the way the foreign bitch described even then. And had you known my mom, you'd know she was no where near subservient. BTW the bitch needs to learn how to spell as well as getting a freaking clue.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Exactly where in the world has that happened? Who has even suggested such a thing.

You fools keep making up "what if" scenarios that are both unrealistic and impossible to enforce, and then act as if they're about to happen.

Exactly where in the world has that happened? Who has even suggested such a thing.

The ASPCA for one. If they would only focus on domesticated animals I might actually support them.

.

 

[White 6]

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.

.

Well I guess that means it's a good thing nobody put any in office.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

Well I guess that means it's a good thing nobody put any in office.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You seem to lack any understanding how our country is structured.

.

 

[White 6]

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.

.

Well I guess that means it's a good thing nobody put any in office.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You seem to lack any understanding how our country is structured.

.

You don't know jacksh#t about commies.

 

[Crepitus]

....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.

Really, the FBI reported that there were 8.4 million new gun owners just last year. The NICS system logged more than 21 million background checks in 2020. The fact is you have no clue how many gun owners are out here.

.

I wasn't talking about gun owners. I was referring to RWNJ whack-a-doodles.

So what are the objective standards to determine who these "whack-a-doodles" are?

.

Threatening to shoot people is a good start.

That disqualifies about half of the local republicans, BTW.

And about 80% of the local commiecrats.

.

What's a commiecrat?

Commies pretending to be democrats. Now the party is full of Alinski and Cloward and Piven acolytes.

.

The only one of those people I've even heard of is Alinsky, and that only because you and your conservitard buddies talk about him all the time.

Yep, Alinski invented the cancel culture. His philosophy was not to attack institutions, but individuals, by Isolation, Diminishment and Destruction of the individual. Sound familiar?

Cloward and Piven developed a strategy to overload and eventually collapse the welfare system, hoping a guaranteed income would result. You're seeing a variation of it at play on the SW border right now.

.

Cancel culture is a RWNJ fantasy.

As previously stated, I've never even heard of the other two

Fantasy? Tell that to the former CEO at Mozilla, or the young lady that was pushed out of Teen Vogue before her first day of work. BTW, those two events were years and thousands of canceled people apart.

Is your fucking google broke? Look it up.

.

You're talking about "consequence culture". That's entirely different.

Justice would be people like you fired and blacklisted for your religious/political beliefs, or some dumb ass thing you said as a kid.

.

You can't fire me, I own the company.

However, what you're describing has happened many times.to many people. Blacks, hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, atheists, muslims, any one you can think of that isn't white male and christian has been dealing with this for centuries.

You're pissed because some.of those folk who traditionally haven't had a say what's "right" or acceptable suddenly do and now some few folks are suffering consequences for saying offensive things.

Tough shit, kid. Most of the rest of the world has been dealing with that forever.

.......muslims treat women as second class citizens and force them to wear head and body coverings...you twit.....

So do conservative evangelicals. There is literally no difference between how evangicals treat women and muslims treatment of women - long sleeves, skirts to knees, viriginity pledges, subserviance to their husbands.

Yeah...there is. Are you this stupid in real life or only when you post.

How many evangelical women are walking around covering their heads, or covering their entire bodies? Entire countries where they will be beaten or imprisoned if they take off the veils....you dumb shit.

Pentecostals.

Oh bullshit, I was raised in a Pentecostal church in the 50s & 60s and the women didn't dress the way the foreign bitch described even then. And had you known my mom, you'd know she was no where near subservient. BTW the bitch needs to learn how to spell as well as getting a freaking clue.

.

Your experience is different than my observations. Obviously not every person in the church is the same. I work with a pentecostal man and his wife and daughters might as well be slaves.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yep......as more people own and carry guns, our accidental gun death rate did not increase, our accidental gun injury rate did not increase, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....as we now have over 19.4 million Americans who can legally carry guns in public for self defense.....

White6 and Vrenn are simply tools for the anti-gun extremists.......they are people who believe things that aren't happening....and want to oppose their will based on those false things......

 

[Utilitarian]

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.

 

[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".

 

[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.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Oh boy, another commie that wants to deflect to theoretical semantics instead of practical reality. Name one actual commie regime that satisfied all of your theoretical bullshit and didn't exert central control.

.