Mass shooting at El Paso Walmart/and also Dayton OH

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

That’s a stretch and you know it.  I am a responsible gun owner.  I have never been convicted of a crime...certainly not a felony.  A 9mm pistol is entirely different than an AR-15 and you know it.

 

@Gugny would disagree. He believes that there's no reason anyone should own a semi-automatic weapon.

 

And he's not alone with that thought.

 

Me, personally, as I said, I don't own a weapon. But I can forsee a future need.

 

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

I believe elected representatives should be the ones to decide on regulations because I know of no better system to do so, do you?

 

I agree on that point, to the point where they don't enact unconstitutional laws.

 

No one should be for that.

 

[Gugny]

4 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

@Gugny would disagree. He believes that there's no reason anyone should own a semi-automatic weapon.

 

And he's not alone with that thought.

 

Me, personally, as I said, I don't own a weapon. But I can forsee a future need.

 

 

I agree on that point, to the point where they don't enact unconstitutional laws.

 

No one should be for that.

 

 

And to one of the original points (of our discussion) anyone behind enacting unconstitutional laws would be an extremist.

12 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Not a fan.

 

Not a fan of 8chan; or not a fan of shutting it down?

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

@Gugny would disagree. He believes that there's no reason anyone should own a semi-automatic weapon.

 

And he's not alone with that thought.

 

Me, personally, as I said, I don't own a weapon. But I can forsee a future need.

 

 

I agree on that point, to the point where they don't enact unconstitutional laws.

 

No one should be for that.

 

1. That's what the supreme court is for.

2. That's what amendments are for.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

And to one of the original points (of our discussion) anyone behind enacting unconstitutional laws would be an extremist.

 

Not a fan of 8chan; or not a fan of shutting it down?

.

Not a fan of shutting it down.

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

1. That's what the supreme court is for.

2. That's what amendments are for.

 

Good luck with the second process 

[Warcodered]

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

.

Not a fan of shutting it down.

 

Good luck with the second process 

If an amendment were necessary sure but there has already been regulation put in place which would seem to throw out the whole broadness of the infringement part.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

If an amendment were necessary sure but there has already been regulation put in place which would seem to throw out the whole broadness of the infringement part.

 

And all of that regulation is unconstitutional.

[Warcodered]

30 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

And all of that regulation is unconstitutional.

True but I'd say there are at least two real basic ways to look at it. 1 with that infringe there, there can be no law to regulate the ownership of weapons(arms is very unspecific so enjoy your new tank). 2. ownership of weapons is regulated within a militia system(probably don't get to just randomly own a gun here).

 

This is probably the biggest problem with the 2nd amendment it was written around 230 years ago and nobody has done anything to update it. I mean seriously the most powerful weapon back then was what a cannon? Who is going to go on a murder spree with a cannon, you'd at best get one shot off and then everyone would either escape or mob you.

 

Also how does a law written at least 100 years before their invention somehow give people retroactively the right to own them? Seriously if we take this law literally as it was written back in the day then either I have to be part of some sort of regulated militia to have a gun or I can have a nuke and the government can kiss my ass.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

True but I'd say there are at least two real basic ways to look at it. 1 with that infringe there, there can be no law to regulate the ownership of weapons(arms is very unspecific so enjoy your new tank). 2. ownership of weapons is regulated within a militia system(probably don't get to just randomly own a gun here).

 

This is probably the biggest problem with the 2nd amendment it was written around 230 years ago and nobody has done anything to update it. I mean seriously the most powerful weapon back then was what a cannon? Who is going to go on a murder spree with a cannon, you'd at best get one shot off and then everyone would either escape or mob you.

 

Also how does a law written at least 100 years before their invention somehow give people retroactively the right to own them? Seriously if we take this law literally as it was written back in the day then either I have to be part of some sort of regulated militia to have a gun or I can have a nuke and the government can kiss my ass.

 

This comes back to my first amendment argument. Can't we say the same thing? That it's outdated, needs updating?

 

The reason this nation has been so successful has been the Constitution and it's absolute authority. Let me ask you this morning one of the pro abolition of the electoral college people?

[Warcodered]

12 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

This comes back to my first amendment argument. Can't we say the same thing? That it's outdated, needs updating?

The ease of communication has significantly changed but in what way do you think this law should change because of it.

15 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

The reason this nation has been so successful has been the Constitution and it's absolute authority.

That's why things aren't easy to change in the Constitution but it is in itself designed to be able to change.

16 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Let me ask you this morning one of the pro abolition of the electoral college people?

You're going to have to be clearer here it doesn't appear to be an actual question.

[GaryPinC]

3 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Exactly. There is no appeasement of the anti-gunners. They want it all, and if you grant them a fraction of it, it won't stop them. Better to not tolerate any regulation.

 

No.  Anti gunners' words carry more weight when no one takes any common sense steps to improve the situation.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

19 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

You're going to have to be clearer here it doesn't appear to be an actual question.

 

There's a group of people in this country who want to abolish the electoral college. Are you among them?

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

There's a group of people in this country who want to abolish the electoral college. Are you among them?

I'm not a part of any specific group about that at all. I'd say I do lean towards a more popular vote. I do appreciate the idea that rural people don't want things to be essentially decided by people in the city but I also can't disagree with people in the cities not liking the idea of people in rural areas votes being worth more. There is also some middle ground where instead of each state giving all of their votes to one candidate with the most votes they can split it based on their states results. Doesn't quite get to a popular vote but has more parity than the electoral college as is.

[bdutton]

3 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

There's no need for semi-automatic weapons for home defense.  And I'm in Queensbury.  We have the Warren County Sheriffs and the Staties covering us.

[Gugny]

3 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

.

Not a fan of shutting it down.

 

 

Joe, this is a website that encourages and glorifies hatred and violence.  Why on earth would you not want something like that shut down?  The only benefit to keeping it going is for the FBI to make a list of people to watch ... and prevent from purchasing/owning any weapons.

42 minutes ago, bdutton said:

 

 

Explain.

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

There's a group of people in this country who want to abolish the electoral college. Are you among them?

No.  I just want the EC to do its job that it was created for: To protect against dangerous demagogues and to overide the people when they are stupid.  NOT rubber stamp a candidate into office because they represent an Electoral College member's party.

 

They do their job... We wouldn't be in this mess with 2nd, or not as bad. Demagogues fire the people up with acts of violence.

 

The status quo wasn't a rose garden, but it was working fairly corruption free and NOT firing up the populus on BOTH SIDES.

[RaoulDuke79]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

No.  I just want the EC to do its job that it was created for: To protect against dangerous demagogues and to overide the people when they are stupid.  NOT rubber stamp a candidate into office because they represent an Electoral College member's party.

 

They do their job... We wouldn't be in this mess with 2nd, or not as bad. Demagogues fire the people up with acts of violence.

 

The status quo wasn't a rose garden, but it was working fairly corruption free and NOT firing up the populus on BOTH SIDES.

Do think part of the problem with the left is comments like this? Thinking they are smarter and know what's best for everyone. Do as I say not as I do right?

[ExiledInIllinois]

11 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

Do think part of the problem with the left is comments like this? Thinking they are smarter and know what's best for everyone. Do as I say not as I do right?

No.  The Electoral College is suppose to be smarter.  There is no denying Trump is an idiot. A demagogue.  Now, he's turned dangerous.  He's firing these douchebags up.

 

Let's start from a few weeks ago.

 

Let's call Dayton a wash, tie.  A lot of these wacky young men have conservative yet socialist leanings.

 

Gilroy and El Paso.  The Right Team.

 

It's 2-0-1 for the demagogues on the Right.

 

EC should have been smart enough to see this. Has nothing to do with right-left in the Electoral College. It's what brings stability to the country.  Trump brings nothing but upheaval. Again, EC was created because the Founders didn't trust the populists.  Go figure, that was all educated white men during the Age of Enlightenment back then.  Throw in everybody now and the Founders have to be rolling over in their grave if you piped a Trump rally speech into the ground! That fiery message is going out to everyone of the voters.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by ExiledInIllinois

[Nextmanup]

The Electoral College is an outdated concept and totally unnecessary in a modern world.

It will also only help the Right rolling forward.

 

I'd love to see it abolished tomorrow.

 

 

[Just Jack]

[Paulus]

1 minute ago, Just Jack said:

Yeah, it is interesting how daft some Americans are regarding the truth about gun violence. I wonder how many people were murdered in The Windy City since the beginning of this month.