Page 230 of 230 FirstFirst ... 130180220228229230
Results 4,581 to 4,584 of 4584

Thread: The Civil NA Politics Thread

  1. #4581
    Tag Team Specialist
    White Rhyno's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The burbs of B-more
    Posts
    1,065
    Rep Power
    213388
      Country                    us=United States

    Re: The Civil NA Politics Thread

    I saw Joe Rogan do a bit where the Founding Fathers come back and are disappointed that almost NO changes to the Constitution have been made.

    Thomas Jefferson: "Really? We wrote 95 percent of this in 1776 and this is the best you could do? To drink or not to drink and fixing that whole slavery thing? Thats it?"


  2. #4582
    I'm your Huckleberry
    Dakstang's Avatar

    Status
    Online
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    21,311
    Rep Power
    286078
      Country                    United States

    Re: The Civil NA Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by White Rhyno View Post
    No one is listening to anyone any more; both sides just wait to speak. There will need to be some middle ground here to get anything accomplished and I haven't seen much. One side feels like they are giving up too much and the other side feels like so much more needs to be done that any resolution will wind up being panned by both sides.
    I will agree with one thing and only one thing that you said. This. ^

    I am 100% not open to ANY sort of further regulations on gun sales themselves. That means banning certain types of guns or magazines.

    The other side won't accept anything less.

    So here we are.

    We could work together and close some loopholes in background checks, create some red flag laws, make background checks more accurate and things that would disqualify someone be faster reported, etc...

    There is much that COULD be accomplished. But they INSIST on punishing lawful gun owners. It isn't about safety to them. It is about retribution against innocent people. They want them to give up guns that has been in their families for generations. And for those ill informed yes, an "assault weapons" ban would do that unless you only make it for new sales of guns because what you so incorrectly call "assault weapons" has been around for nearly a hundred years and would include many hunting rifles that are nearly 100 years old. And you don't get the emotion behind this? Taking a family heirloom that has been in a family for generations?

    And even if you would only make it for new guns sales it is still not acceptable. The guns are still out there. You can go to flea markets and buy them without a background check. You can buy local 'Trade And Sell' type papers and buy them from private owners without a background check. It. Won't. Help. It only punishes those who do things the right way.

    So we must draw a line in the sand and firmly say, "This far, and no further." and that is what has been done.

    Cross it and who knows what will result?

    Buddy if you try to take my rights you're in for one hell of a fight
    When it comes to my Constitution I'm a true believer
    Come to my house I'll tell you right now, I'll give you my gun
    When you pry it from my cold dead hand, start with my middle finger

  3. #4583
    No One
    Jon Snow's Avatar

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Westeros
    Posts
    13,381
    Rep Power
    790224
      Country                    Canada

    Re: The Civil NA Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakstang View Post

    And with that, I must once more bow out of this gun debate.

    *tips hat*

    Dak

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakstang View Post
    I will agree with one thing and only one thing that you said. This. ^

    I am 100% not open to ANY sort of further regulations on gun sales themselves. That means banning certain types of guns or magazines.

    The other side won't accept anything less.

    So here we are.

    We could work together and close some loopholes in background checks, create some red flag laws, make background checks more accurate and things that would disqualify someone be faster reported, etc...

    There is much that COULD be accomplished. But they INSIST on punishing lawful gun owners. It isn't about safety to them. It is about retribution against innocent people. They want them to give up guns that has been in their families for generations. And for those ill informed yes, an "assault weapons" ban would do that unless you only make it for new sales of guns because what you so incorrectly call "assault weapons" has been around for nearly a hundred years and would include many hunting rifles that are nearly 100 years old. And you don't get the emotion behind this? Taking a family heirloom that has been in a family for generations?

    And even if you would only make it for new guns sales it is still not acceptable. The guns are still out there. You can go to flea markets and buy them without a background check. You can buy local 'Trade And Sell' type papers and buy them from private owners without a background check. It. Won't. Help. It only punishes those who do things the right way.

    So we must draw a line in the sand and firmly say, "This far, and no further." and that is what has been done.

    Cross it and who knows what will result?
    Also Dak

    Quote Originally Posted by White Rhyno View Post
    On a personal note, Jon's reaction to the idea of a draft answered indy's question from a week or two back. "Why are servicemembers celebrated for a choice they make?" I think a big reason they are celebrated in the US is because an all volunteer Army means no one will be drafted or forced to serve. The fact that these people also willingly take on a job that could potentially put them in danger in service to their country and fellow citizens (I know how you feel about that slant Indy, but bear with me), and they have to give up several rights to serve is the WHY.
    Servicemembers can't decide when to quit, what assignments they will take, how long they are away from their families, they can't fight geographical moves if they are ordered to, etc. They (and their families) willingly take on that to keep EVERYONE from having to do it.

    Thats sounds like masturbation coming from me so I didn't want to share this too loudly, but the military isn't just another job. It requires a little bit more sacrifice than most.
    Well, the reason I wouldnt volunteer for the army is because I don't believe in it. If I felt that we were fighting for a legitimate reason; IE: Nazism/Fascism/White Nationalism and it was encroaching into our country, I would be very much inclined to volunteer. So it's not a fear thing, but a moral thing for me. Taking a job that puts you in danger doesnt automatically make it a job were admiring, and in service to your fellow citizens can be very debatable.

    I think if there was less moral ambiguity and questionable decision making in the US's peace efforts overseas, the job of a service member would be a lot more respectable. But because there are so many questions about the motivations and the actions taken overseas, its hard to feel like soldiers are peacekeepers (much in the same way as the amount of controversy surrounding police offers makes it hard to feel like they're serving/protecting us).

    So basically, in a dream world where soldiers had clearer defined roles and objectives in terms of international peace keeping, the job would be not only something I'd celebrate but also would love to contribute to. In the real world, I find it hard to admire/support/celebrate it. That said, I wont villyfy service members or criticize them. I'll take it by the individual.

  4. #4584
    Cardcaptor
    Sakura's Avatar

    Status
    Online
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The Northwoods
    Posts
    7,279
    Rep Power
    573682
      Country                    United States

    Re: The Civil NA Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakstang View Post
    I am 100% not open to ANY sort of further regulations on gun sales themselves. That means banning certain types of guns or magazines.
    And why is that, though? What is the great significance and gander with such to you?


    It says no where in the 2A about what kinds of arms you are permitted or not permitted to have. If you still have the right to bear arms, even if it's only a shotgun, you still have the same right. You don't need access to any and all guns. Nothing ever said such or implied such.

    Also, why is it you truly think these people knew best and were so knowledgeable? As stated, the world was radically different back then. Compare medicine now to then. Society. Do we still duel to the death over petty differences and think of such as normal? Of course not, because that's downright insane. As was a lot of stuff they did back then. Slavery? No, absolutely not. That's not okay. So why is it that this one thing is something you are absolutely dead set on being a must have for the end of time, when the very people who put such in there had entirely different lives than anyone today, different needs, and different views?

    This is not the 1700s. The world is radically different, and therefor the regulations should be. And they are. For almost everything but that.

    Plus, you yourself do not even own a gun you have said. Yet, you have also said living in rural areas in the USA, police time is bad, so one is almost a need be.
    Last edited by Sakura; 08-11-2019 at 06:23 PM.
    Everything will surely be alright.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •