Authoritarian Democrat congressman teams up with sactowndog, wants to confiscate guns and nuke Americans

[sactowndog]

2 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Lol — you still have that command center in your parents’ basement?

As usual your argumentative approach is insults.    I thought you were better than that but perhaps not....

i mean after all you bought the BS that the term sheet rewarded competition so perhaps you are a bit challenged.   

[mugtang]

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

That’s a good point.  Again I’m not saying I have answers just that currently I think we are sub-optimized no matter your goal.

I really think the problem is mental illness and not guns.  We’ve had access to guns for over two centuries.  Hell, 40 years ago you could buy an automatic weapon at the sporting goods store yet mass shootings didn’t happen like they do now.  The problem is society and people.  We don’t value human life the way we used to.  It’s easy to want to go and kill people because your social interactions with people aren’t in real life, it’s on twitter or other social media. Blaming guns is the easy way out.  Sure, we can do expanded background checks including private party transactions. I’d even support mental evaluations with gun purchases.  But we need to also look at mental health, the antidepressants were taking, etc.  

[sactowndog]

21 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I really think the problem is mental illness and not guns.  We’ve had access to guns for over two centuries.  Hell, 40 years ago you could buy an automatic weapon at the sporting goods store yet mass shootings didn’t happen like they do now.  The problem is society and people.  We don’t value human life the way we used to.  It’s easy to want to go and kill people because your social interactions with people aren’t in real life, it’s on twitter or other social media. Blaming guns is the easy way out.  Sure, we can do expanded background checks including private party transactions. I’d even support mental evaluations with gun purchases.  But we need to also look at mental health, the antidepressants were taking, etc.  

Clearly access to guns by the mentally ill is a key problem.   I agree you need a system to monitor mental health.  Mass shootings aren’t just a 2000’s phenomenon.

 https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/mass-killings-list-from-1940s-to-now

[bluerules009]

4 hours ago, sactowndog said:

US Military can control whatever part of Afghanistan they want.  It’s a matter of boots on the ground.  

 

 

So when are they going to do that and why haven't they in the last almost 20 years?

[bluerules009]

3 hours ago, mugtang said:

I really think the problem is mental illness and not guns.  We’ve had access to guns for over two centuries.  Hell, 40 years ago you could buy an automatic weapon at the sporting goods store yet mass shootings didn’t happen like they do now.  The problem is society and people.  We don’t value human life the way we used to.  It’s easy to want to go and kill people because your social interactions with people aren’t in real life, it’s on twitter or other social media. Blaming guns is the easy way out.  Sure, we can do expanded background checks including private party transactions. I’d even support mental evaluations with gun purchases.  But we need to also look at mental health, the antidepressants were taking, etc.  

The problem is mental illness and the first amendment not guns.

The fame these kids recieve and the copy cat effect is solely on the media and platforms like facebook, twitter and all the other crap that take no responsibility for their product.

99.999% or more of gun owners use their guns responsibly.  

99.999% or the media does not use their first amendment rights responsibly at all and they are unwilling to even consider doing so.

[BSUTOP25]

6 hours ago, sactowndog said:

As usual your argumentative approach is insults.    I thought you were better than that but perhaps not....

i mean after all you bought the BS that the term sheet rewarded competition so perhaps you are a bit challenged.   

Well, considering my opposition in this thread is a nutter who goes on blathering about a civil war and an extreme left wing communist who makes Stalin look like a moderate centrist in comparison, I can see why my comments might appear "insulting." 

[retrofade]

So uhm... how's it going in here? 

[BSUTOP25]

22 minutes ago, retrofade said:

So uhm... how's it going in here? 

Things were going really well with some constructive dialog until Comrade fan tried to derail the thread by veering off topic. He’s pissed that the Canadian Communist Weekly wasn’t referenced as a source. 

[BSUTOP25]

10 hours ago, Boise fan said:

Start with the man in the mirror.

Ask him to change his ways.

No message could have been any clearer.

If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make that...change!

Is that the new party motto Comrade?

http://communist-party.ca/

[Jackrabbit]

I once took antidepressants for about 6 months after a dear friend and 3 close family members died within 16 months of each other.  Would that disqualify me from owning a gun?  Who would decide that?  Would I need to hire an attorney for a hearing?  What would due process look like?

[BSUTOP25]

10 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

I once took antidepressants for about 6 months after a dear friend and 3 close family members died within 16 months of each other.  Would that disqualify me from owning a gun?  Who would decide that?  Would I need to hire an attorney for a hearing?  What would due process look like?

Under a Comrade fan run regime, only his jackbooted opritchniki would be allowed to possess firearms. 

[sactowndog]

5 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

So when are they going to do that and why haven't they in the last almost 20 years?

Because we have no desire to send the amount of troops required to occupy Afghanistan and the Afghan government doesn’t want that kind of presence.

[sactowndog]

5 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

Bollocks. No outside invader has controlled those lands with any success since Alexander the Great. The US has done such a great job controlling things there in the last nearly two decades that opium production is at an all time high and the Central Afghan State Apparatus (The Afghani Government in plain English) is as helpless, dysfunctional and neutered as ever. 

The old saying "You can't buy the Afghans, you can only rent them" comes to mind. 

 

From a political standpoint I agree.   But the fighters disappear into bunkers in the mountain or over the border.   But that’s different than saying the Taliban fighters can win a direct firefight using limited weaponry against our firepower which was essentially the claim.  

[sactowndog]

5 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

The problem is mental illness and the first amendment not guns.

The fame these kids recieve and the copy cat effect is solely on the media and platforms like facebook, twitter and all the other crap that take no responsibility for their product.

99.999% or more of gun owners use their guns responsibly.  

99.999% or the media does not use their first amendment rights responsibly at all and they are unwilling to even consider doing so.

I agree the media is part of the problem but I would instead point to talk radio and the morons that consume it.   Instead of discussing issues, talk radio hosts act like you and @BSUTOP25 and spend their time demonizing those who have differing opinions.   This discussion is a perfect example of it.   Instead of a discussion it’s primarily insults.   Listen to talk radio and you hear much of the same if not worse.   

[Jackrabbit]

1 hour ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Under a Comrade fan run regime, only his jackbooted opritchniki would be allowed to possess firearms. 

Everyone would take a mental health screening test....let me write the questions.

[Rebelbacker]

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

From a political standpoint I agree.   But the fighters disappear into bunkers in the mountain or over the border.   But that’s different than saying the Taliban fighters can win a direct firefight using limited weaponry against our firepower which was essentially the claim.  

That was never the claim. Do you know what an insurgency is? 

[Rebelbacker]

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

I agree the media is part of the problem but I would instead point to talk radio and the morons that consume it.   Instead of discussing issues, talk radio hosts act like you and @BSUTOP25 and spend their time demonizing those who have differing opinions.   This discussion is a perfect example of it.   Instead of a discussion it’s primarily insults.   Listen to talk radio and you hear much of the same if not worse.   

If you feel insulted it’s because you are putting forth your opinions without having the facts to back you up. When you start off by not knowing what semi auto firearms are then saying they shouldn’t be allowed you are going to get people to disagree with you. 

Now you are taking the standard tactic of playing the victim. The bottom line is you have a lot to learn about this issue. 

[bluerules009]

4 hours ago, sactowndog said:

I agree the media is part of the problem but I would instead point to talk radio and the morons that consume it.   Instead of discussing issues, talk radio hosts act like you and @BSUTOP25 and spend their time demonizing those who have differing opinions.   This discussion is a perfect example of it.   Instead of a discussion it’s primarily insults.   Listen to talk radio and you hear much of the same if not worse.   

We know you hate facts which is why you hate @BSUTOP25 owning you with them.

Talk radio isn't the problem.

NBC, ABC, CBS, The Tonight Show, Ellen, MSNBC, Fox, Facebook, Twitter etc... are the problem.

[bluerules009]

4 hours ago, sactowndog said:

From a political standpoint I agree.   But the fighters disappear into bunkers in the mountain or over the border.   But that’s different than saying the Taliban fighters can win a direct firefight using limited weaponry against our firepower which was essentially the claim.  

They have been doing it for almost 20 years.

[nocoolnamejim]

21 hours ago, mugtang said:

It’s obvious he was being sarcastic about the nukes.  What’s terrifying is he believes the United States should use force to confiscate property from people who legally obtained that property.  

"Eminent Domain" is not a new legal concept. It's been around for quite a while. 

The government has always been able to use force to confiscate property from people that legally obtained that property for purposes it decides are in the common good for reasonable compensation. 

Does it apply to this situation? Debatable. But I wouldn't consider it particularly horrifying or outside of the mainstream given how long the legal precedent has been around.