Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Human trafficking is a serious problem

Recommended Posts

On 5/21/2022 at 8:44 PM, sactowndog said:

People can still have assault type high capacity weapons (which actually makes them better armed)…. They are just “owned by the local militia and the person has to be trained and regularly vetted by the local militia to keep their possession.   

You just said that getting rid of the AR 15's will not do anything to limit gun homicide.  So, not consistent.  Also shits all over multiple ammendments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 8:42 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You just said that getting rid of the AR 15's will not do anything to limit gun homicide.  So, not consistent.  Also shits all over multiple ammendments.

 

In your opinion it violates the 2nd.  I disagree Heller aside.  
 

Also I didn’t say I got rid of automatic guns. Only that they would be fundamentally owned by the local militia but could be kept at home given the requirements met.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 9:51 PM, sactowndog said:

In your opinion it violates the 2nd.  I disagree Heller aside.  
 

Also I didn’t say I got rid of automatic guns. Only that they would be fundamentally owned by the local militia but could be kept at home given the requirements met.   

And the 4th.

So you admit it is a solution in search of a problem, right?  Since by your own admission in this thread it would do nothing to limit homicides.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 9:51 PM, sactowndog said:

In your opinion it violates the 2nd.  I disagree Heller aside.  
 

Also I didn’t say I got rid of automatic guns. Only that they would be fundamentally owned by the local militia but could be kept at home given the requirements met.   

Automatic weapons have been outlawed since the 1930s 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 8:59 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

And the 4th.

So you admit it is a solution in search of a problem, right?  Since by your own admission in this thread it would do nothing to limit homicides.

 

Reducing the number of homocides via gun deaths is not in search of a problem. That statement is pretty insulting.  It would keep high capacity assault weapons from the mentally unstable.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 10:48 PM, bornontheblue said:

Automatic weapons have been outlawed since the 1930s 

His idea is that you must give up your semi-automatic weapons, no longer be allowed to own them, but in exchange if you enroll in a government (state) controlled you can rent a BAR or some shit.

 

On 5/21/2022 at 10:54 PM, sactowndog said:

Reducing the number of homocides via gun deaths is not in search of a problem. That statement is pretty insulting.  It would keep high capacity assault weapons from the mentally unstable.   

You admit that reducing guns in circulation would not reduce homicides via gun death in this very thread.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 9:55 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

His idea is that you must give up your semi-automatic weapons, no longer be allowed to own them, but in exchange if you enroll in a gonerment (state) controlled 

 

You admit that reducing guns in circulation would not reduce homicides via gun death in this very thread.  

 

No I said it wouldn’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Criminals are not the people that shot up Sandy Hook or Las Vegas.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 10:57 PM, sactowndog said:

No I said it wouldn’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Criminals are not the people that shot up Sandy Hook or Las Vegas.   

Yes, yes they are.  By the very definition.  Ask any clinician at any prison in the US, the majority locked up have one or more mental health disorders.  

All rifles combined kill a little over 300 people a year.  There are over 20 million "assault rifles" in circulation in the US.  That counts as "common" and makes them constitutionally protected, but that is aside the point.  Over 200 million semi automatic weapons.  Just....lol that your idea that shits on multiple amendments would do any good, at all.  

How about a free mental health screening, paid for by tax payers like you (cost around $500 each)  for every first time gun buyer, or purchase of an "assault" weapon?  That does not shit on the constitution and might actually make a small difference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 10:03 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Yes, yes they are.  By the very definition.  Ask any clinician at any prison in the US, the majority locked up have one or more mental health disorders.  

All rifles combined kill a little over 300 people a year.  There are over 20 million "assault rifles" in circulation in the US.  That counts as "common" and makes them constitutionally protected, but that is aside the point.  Over 200 million semi automatic weapons.  Just....lol that your idea that shits on multiple amendments would do any good, at all.  

How about a free mental health screening, paid for by tax payers like you (cost around $500 each)  for every first time gun buyer, or purchase of an "assault" weapon?  That does not shit on the constitution and might actually make a small difference.

 

First time does nothing.  You have to get tested to drive a car.  Being required to pass screening to own a military grade weapon is hardly an imposition.  
 

we are going to agree.  No point in continuing this conversation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 11:21 PM, sactowndog said:

First time does nothing.  You have to get tested to drive a car.  Being required to pass screening to own a military grade weapon is hardly an imposition.  
 

we are going to agree.  No point in continuing this conversation 

Yeah, your idea is silly.  There is a reason even on this board nobody else has said "yeah, that sounds reasonable".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 11:21 PM, sactowndog said:

First time does nothing.  You have to get tested to drive a car.  Being required to pass screening to own a military grade weapon is hardly an imposition.  
 

we are going to agree.  No point in continuing this conversation 

I mean you realize in this thread your position is that less guns in circulation will not keep the guns out of the hands of criminals but somehow keep them out of the mentally ill.  You...see the logical fail in that, right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 10:26 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I mean you realize in this thread your position is that less guns in circulation will not keep the guns out of the hands of criminals but somehow keep them out of the mentally ill.  You...see the logical fail in that, right?

 

No because two different issues.  Guns for criminals which to your point tend to be hand guns and guns for mentally ill Mass shooters.  Apples and Oranges.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 11:03 PM, bsu_alum9 said:

Weird that this story has zero to do with guns, borders, and shitty German cars.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article261353877.html
 

Dallas PD and the Mavericks gonna pay some money for their negligence on this one.

What a horrific thing to happen. The kid should have been screaming her head off but was probably too scared. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 11:30 PM, sactowndog said:

No because two different issues.  Guns for criminals which to your point tend to be hand guns and guns for mentally ill Mass shooters.  Apples and Oranges.  

So, why would an attempt to remove handguns not work to keep guns from criminals but an attempt to remove rifles would stop mass shooters?  You are talking.  Between 1982 and this current month "assault" rifles were used in mass shootings 50 times.  Rifles are used in 13% of mass shootings.  The best way to go about addressing that is not to attempt to illegally (according to the 4th) seize 20-25 million pieces of private property

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

  Anyway, we have hijacked the  thread, we can continue on a the related thread, or we can just agree nobody is changing their mind.  Either way, have a good night.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 10:48 PM, bornontheblue said:

Automatic weapons have been outlawed since the 1930s 

That isn't ideologically consistent to limit some arms but not others.   Not a very "originalist" ban,  eh?

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 2:47 PM, Nevada Convert said:

Oh come on, being a Commie, it just excites you to see people wanting to flood into a country for a change vs. the normal Commie thing where floods of people are trying to get out. 😂

Only the "poorly educated" think the "build the wall" idea was anything other than a symbolic gesture.  The wall was a symbol that "we hate Mexicans and others of their ilk because they are ruining "true America" and we should just keep them out completely as they don't belong here."  The funny thing is that for a party whose main gripe is immigration (and previously healthcare) they haven't coalesced around a single actual set of ideas other than can fit on a bumper sticker.  "Build the wall" and "repeal and replace" are so simple for the rubes to understand.  Actually talking about policy is so BORRING and NOT FUN.  

The reason why the wall would not work it it is just a full employment/enrichment act for smugglers.  The more difficult you make it to cross the border the more lucrative it becomes to be a coyote or drug smuggler.  The more lucrative it also becomes to protect your smuggling routes with violence.  If the wage differences are so pronounced and the demand for drugs is so strong, your silly wall will never work.  That is why it isn't a serious policy proposal. 

The only way to solve the border is to make it EASIER to pass the actual border region for those who aren't a threat.  That allows law enforcement to focus on actual criminals instead of focusing on people who are coming to the USA with the best intentions.  At the same time you have to crack down on employers who hire employees under the table.  There should be no such thing any longer as an "undocumented immigrant" and if you do find one then you almost know they are up to no good because it would be so easy and inexpensive for them to come legally. 

Now the funny thing is you like to talk about "commie" but YOU and the Trumpists are the ones who don't want capitalism to work.  Capitalism by its very nature depends on free movement of capital and labor.  For some reason, however, you want to put an artificial barrier up to stop capitalism.  Just like Korea and Berlin were split by an artificial barrier, you want to split up communities which exist on both sides of the border and not let them easily trade and develop, etc.

If you disagree, fine, but why don't you and your orange brethren come up with something more than a bumper sticker proposal to tackle a complex problem. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 5:43 AM, Akkula said:

Only the "poorly educated" think the "build the wall" idea was anything other than a symbolic gesture.  The wall was a symbol that "we hate Mexicans and others of their ilk because they are ruining "true America" and we should just keep them out completely as they don't belong here."  The funny thing is that for a party whose main gripe is immigration (and previously healthcare) they haven't coalesced around a single actual set of ideas other than can fit on a bumper sticker.  "Build the wall" and "repeal and replace" are so simple for the rubes to understand.  Actually talking about policy is so BORRING and NOT FUN.  

The reason why the wall would not work it it is just a full employment/enrichment act for smugglers.  The more difficult you make it to cross the border the more lucrative it becomes to be a coyote or drug smuggler.  The more lucrative it also becomes to protect your smuggling routes with violence.  If the wage differences are so pronounced and the demand for drugs is so strong, your silly wall will never work.  That is why it isn't a serious policy proposal. 

The only way to solve the border is to make it EASIER to pass the actual border region for those who aren't a threat.  That allows law enforcement to focus on actual criminals instead of focusing on people who are coming to the USA with the best intentions.  At the same time you have to crack down on employers who hire employees under the table.  There should be no such thing any longer as an "undocumented immigrant" and if you do find one then you almost know they are up to no good because it would be so easy and inexpensive for them to come legally. 

Now the funny thing is you like to talk about "commie" but YOU and the Trumpists are the ones who don't want capitalism to work.  Capitalism by its very nature depends on free movement of capital and labor.  For some reason, however, you want to put an artificial barrier up to stop capitalism.  Just like Korea and Berlin were split by an artificial barrier, you want to split up communities which exist on both sides of the border and not let them easily trade and develop, etc.

If you disagree, fine, but why don't you and your orange brethren come up with something more than a bumper sticker proposal to tackle a complex problem. 

Your side simply refuses the southern border wall is a tool to control immigration not stop it.  But racism!....blah blah blah.

Controlling a border is not anticapitalist and certainly not complicated.   Your team just wants more population that govt can control and will support any and all illegal means to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...