Are we being purposely divided?

[Doc]

23 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

C Thomas and his wifes opinion on the election? that topic again?

 

The hypocrisy is they controlled womens', and mens', lives by forcing vaccines on everyone.  Oh, but that's different!  

[716er]

“They” didn’t force vaccines on everyone.

[BillStime]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The hypocrisy is they controlled womens', and mens', lives by forcing vaccines on everyone.  Oh, but that's different!  

 

Yea, that's a GREAT comparison "DOC"

 

Wrong side of every issue

 

 

 

[ArdmoreRyno]

15 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

You summed it up pretty well!

 

Great job,

 

 

 

I know dude. You can't stand when someone thinks differently. 

[SectionC3]

34 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Jump on the gun thread for your answers... but let me help.

 

1. We have background checks. Every gun legally purchased from a FFL (gun dealer) must complete a Form 4473 (ATF/FBI background check). Doesn't matter if you're at a gun shop, pawn shop or gun show. Only private purchases don't have to do background checks. Lets say you somehow add that onto the 20,000 gun laws in America... no criminal is going to go down to their local FFL to do a background check. 

 

2. Red flag laws are a horrible idea. One way to legally make someone guilty before they can prove they aren't. Here is a good opinion piece from the CATO institute (a liberation intuition).

 

3. Minimum age requirements are already in place. I don't necessarily have an issue with more of a background check for pre-21 year old's from buying a semi-automatic rifle. Especially looking at juvenile records, but AR platforms aren't weapons of war. Just because they look similar, they don't function the same (this is coming from someone who was issued an actual "Weapon of War" in the military. And trust me, a 19 year old in the USMC isn't any more mature than a 19 year old civi. 

 

4. Worst school shooting in American history was carried out by a 9mm handgun and .22 LR handgun. The handgun is what is used in 95% of all so-called "mass shooting". 

I don’t disagree with number 4.  I suppose the “devil” is in what constitutes a mass shooting.  

 

And, don’t get me wrong.  I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say.  I’m coming around on red flag laws, from initially thinking it was a bad plan to now holding my nose because we don’t have a better solution at the moment.  I happen to disagree with you about what constitutes a weapon of war; just because you were issued a different rifle by a branch of the United States military doesn’t mean that the AR-15 cannot constitute a weapon of war.  I have to say, though, that I also don’t believe that such weapons should be banned or could be banned based in part on my reading of the Constitution and in part based on my view of the paramount importance of keeping any weapon, AR or otherwise, out of the hands of people who are mentally disturbed—hence my change of heart on red flag laws.

 

 

In any event, the issue, in my view, isn’t what you and I think.  It’s what suburban, college-educated women thing.  They don’t think you need an AR-15.  They worry about their kids going to school safely.  And they hate the fact that one party doesn’t want to do what they perceive as anything meaningful about it.  

3 minutes ago, Bandito said:

 

Yes they did. It was either get vaxxed or lose your job. Stop lying.

That’s capitalism for you.  Don’t like it?  Find another job. 

[ArdmoreRyno]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

I don’t disagree with number 4.  I suppose the “devil” is in what constitutes a mass shooting.  

 

And, don’t get me wrong.  I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say.  I’m coming around on red flag laws, from initially thinking it was a bad plan to now holding my nose because we don’t have a better solution at the moment.  I happen to disagree with you about what constitutes a weapon of war; just because you were issued a different rifle by a branch of the United States military doesn’t mean that the AR-15 cannot constitute a weapon of war.  I have to say, though, that I also don’t believe that such weapons should be banned or could be banned based in part on my reading of the Constitution and in part based on my view of the paramount importance of keeping any weapon, AR or otherwise, out of the hands of people who are mentally disturbed—hence my change of heart on red flag laws.

 

 

In any event, the issue, in my view, isn’t what you and I think.  It’s what suburban, college-educated women thing.  They don’t think you need an AR-15.  They worry about their kids going to school safely.  And they hate the fact that one party doesn’t want to do what they perceive as anything meaningful about it.  

 

I appreciate the conversation. We don't have enough of this in America today, let alone this site. 

[nedboy7]

10 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Yea, that's a GREAT comparison "DOC"

 

Wrong side of every issue

 

 

 

 

And if he is so against forced vax why is he for abortion rights being taken away?  Payback for vax mandates? 

 

1 hour ago, Matt_In_NH said:

I think sources of propaganda are a key component of the subject here.   The topic is very detailed though.   I am not sure about the rich guy you are talking about.  
 

I feel strongly about stop the steal because it is complete bull crap and that has been proven in court time and again.    He had every opportunity to prove a case and the opposite has happened… nothing but made up nonsense.  The opposite is actually true he tried to steal the election and I guess you like that because you like him.  Is that a hardline?  So be it.  I also have a hard line position on student loans you can go to that thread and read my position there.  The “progressive” stuff is also nonsense.  
 

I don’t think trumps win in 2016 was illegitimate.  He identified and influenced the right people to get the win, it was shocking and ultimately brought out how powerful social media is.  

 

You are arguing with extremely stupid people... 

Edited September 6, 2022 by nedboy7

[BillStime]

10 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I know dude. You can't stand when someone thinks differently. 

 

Hmm, not really. Our democracy was never threatened until MAGA hit... and its been downhill ever since.

 

 

[SectionC3]

5 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I appreciate the conversation. We don't have enough of this in America today, let alone this site. 

Agreed.  I’ll add one thing I failed to mention earlier.  I acknowledge your point that there are background checks.  I’m not familiar with the acronym for the check, or with the federal filings that are required of gun dealers.  But I am familiar with the Iron Pipeline, and what I understand to be the difference in background checks on a state to state basis.  That’s something that I think we need to clean up.  Have symmetry in the law.  We have a Second Amendment that we have to respect and have to honor.  I just don’t see red flag and more stringent background (and, frankly, raise the age for semi-automatic gun ownership) as impermissible limitation of the rights guaranteed therein.  

2 minutes ago, Bandito said:

Abortion rights were not taken away. The issue is the original Roe v Wade ruling was unconstitutional. It never should have been made federal law. Things not listed in the Constitution are reserved to the states (10th Amendment). The overturning of Roe v Wade sent abortion back to the states where it correctly belongs. 

We are not a democracy. You don't even know what government we are LOLOLOL.

 

Hoax on Roe v Wade.  A prior court identified the right to abortion as constitutionally-protected within certain guidelines.  The new iteration of the court changed the rules.  Call it what you wish, but Dobbs represents the first ever retraction of a constitutional right.  

[ArdmoreRyno]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Agreed.  I’ll add one thing I failed to mention earlier.  I acknowledge your point that there are background checks.  I’m not familiar with the acronym for the check, or with the federal filings that are required of gun dealers.  But I am familiar with the Iron Pipeline, and what I understand to be the difference in background checks on a state to state basis.  That’s something that I think we need to clean up.  Have symmetry in the law.  We have a Second Amendment that we have to respect and have to honor.  I just don’t see red flag and more stringent background (and, frankly, raise the age for semi-automatic gun ownership) as impermissible limitation of the rights guaranteed therein.  

 

Form 4473 is an ATF form you have to fill out when you buy a firearm. It goes to both the ATF and FBI. All states require this form... there is no state that ignores this process. 

 

Now different states have their own requirements, like a wait time after you buy a firearm. 

 

But my main issue with new background checks: Criminals won't do it. They'll buy a gun off the street and ignore all laws. I then have to travel 30-40 miles to my local FFL with my dad, when we somehow can both get off work at the same time, to do a background check and pay more money when I gifted him a Henry .357 lever action rifle (I got one for his 70th birthday a year ago). I can't give my wife a pistol I bought her for protection when I'm out of town without both of us doing ANOTHER background check. 

[716er]

16 minutes ago, Bandito said:

 

Yes they did. It was either get vaxxed or lose your job. Stop lying.

Different states and different companies had different policies.

 

”They” did not force vaccines on “everyone.”

[ArdmoreRyno]

Just now, 716er said:

Different states and different companies had different policies.

 

”They” did not force vaccines on “everyone.”

 

But you'd lose your job if you don't do it (see: US military) 

[BillStime]

 

[716er]

Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

But you'd lose your job if you don't do it (see: US military) 

Indeed. Though there are plenty of companies and states that allowed those who were unvaxxed to continue working.

 

Pick and choose all you want.

 

Throwing blanket statements over complex issues with nuance and variance is how the propaganda grows and festers.

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Form 4473 is an ATF form you have to fill out when you buy a firearm. It goes to both the ATF and FBI. All states require this form... there is no state that ignores this process. 

 

Now different states have their own requirements, like a wait time after you buy a firearm. 

 

But my main issue with new background checks: Criminals won't do it. They'll buy a gun off the street and ignore all laws. I then have to travel 30-40 miles to my local FFL with my dad, when we somehow can both get off work at the same time, to do a background check and pay more money when I gifted him a Henry .357 lever action rifle (I got one for his 70th birthday a year ago). I can't give my wife a pistol I bought her for protection when I'm out of town without both of us doing ANOTHER background check. 

 

The states are stuck with the reporting requirements.  That I get.  And i can sympathize both with your difficulty in enjoying a constitutional right and with your point that criminals won’t comply with background checks.  On the flip side, however, one can go to a gun show in a place like Ohio, buy literally hundreds of guns on the spot, and then cart them back to New York for resale.  Will a background check stop that?  Probably depends on the definition of background check.  If the check includes a waiting period, then maybe it works.  I don’t know.  There’s not a good solution for a lot of this stuff, but it says something to me when guns used in crimes in New York State can regularly and frequently be traced to out of state sales.  

[ArdmoreRyno]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

The states are stuck with the reporting requirements.  That I get.  And i can sympathize both with your difficulty in enjoying a constitutional right and with your point that criminals won’t comply with background checks.  On the flip side, however, one can go to a gun show in a place like Ohio, buy literally hundreds of guns on the spot, and then cart them back to New York for resale.  Will a background check stop that?  Probably depends on the definition of background check.  If the check includes a waiting period, then maybe it works.  I don’t know.  There’s not a good solution for a lot of this stuff, but it says something to me when guns used in crimes in New York State can regularly and frequently be traced to out of state sales.  

 

Those are private sales at a gun show. It's not common compared to gun dealers... which is what the vast majority of gun shows are made  up of. Some states allow private sellers some don't. In Oklahoma, I've seen (only twice in my life) someone walk around carrying 2-3 guns on them going to dealers asking if they want to buy them. 

 

Bad guys DO get guns that way, but its so much easier to do a straw purchase or get them on the streets. The easiest way for a criminal to get a gun is to simply steal them.

[Tommy Callahan]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t disagree with number 4.  I suppose the “devil” is in what constitutes a mass shooting.  

 

And, don’t get me wrong.  I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say.  I’m coming around on red flag laws, from initially thinking it was a bad plan to now holding my nose because we don’t have a better solution at the moment.  I happen to disagree with you about what constitutes a weapon of war; just because you were issued a different rifle by a branch of the United States military doesn’t mean that the AR-15 cannot constitute a weapon of war.  I have to say, though, that I also don’t believe that such weapons should be banned or could be banned based in part on my reading of the Constitution and in part based on my view of the paramount importance of keeping any weapon, AR or otherwise, out of the hands of people who are mentally disturbed—hence my change of heart on red flag laws.

 

 

In any event, the issue, in my view, isn’t what you and I think.  It’s what suburban, college-educated women thing.  They don’t think you need an AR-15.  They worry about their kids going to school safely.  And they hate the fact that one party doesn’t want to do what they perceive as anything meaningful about it.  

That’s capitalism for you.  Don’t like it?  Find another job. 

quick question. Not just that branch. but what countries military issues AR-15? to their infantry?

 

 

I dont see us sending Ukraine cases of AR-15's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Chris farley

[SectionC3]

31 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Those are private sales at a gun show. It's not common compared to gun dealers... which is what the vast majority of gun shows are made  up of. Some states allow private sellers some don't. In Oklahoma, I've seen (only twice in my life) someone walk around carrying 2-3 guns on them going to dealers asking if they want to buy them. 

 

Bad guys DO get guns that way, but its so much easier to do a straw purchase or get them on the streets. The easiest way for a criminal to get a gun is to simply steal them.

I think the straw/streets thing is a byproduct of those high-volume purchases.  That’s the issue with the gun shows.  Someone can quickly buy hundreds of guns at once in Ohio, drive them to New York State, and deal them on the street.  It happens way too often. 

[Tommy Callahan]

Hoax on Roe v Wade.  A prior court identified the right to abortion as constitutionally-protected within certain guidelines.  The new iteration of the court changed the rules.  Call it what you wish, but Dobbs represents the first ever retraction of a constitutional right.

 

So backwards. even RBG said that ruling was very weak.

 

the state does not provide rights, it cannot take them away. and in an ironic twist. that ruling just put it at the state level. where peoples votes have way more weight. 

 

 

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

quick question. Not just that branch. but what countries military issues AR-15? to their infantry?

 

 

I dont see us sending Ukraine cases of AR-15's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beats me.  What you’re trying to say is that if no government issues such weapons to servicemembers, then the gun can’t be a weapon of war.  So what is war?  A declared conflict?  A terrorist action?  Harm inflicted by a lone wolf?  A militia action?  The point is that war can be conducted by an entity other than uniformed military, so I don’t ascribe to the point you’re attempting to make. 

Just now, Chris farley said:

Hoax on Roe v Wade.  A prior court identified the right to abortion as constitutionally-protected within certain guidelines.  The new iteration of the court changed the rules.  Call it what you wish, but Dobbs represents the first ever retraction of a constitutional right.

 

So backwards. even RBG said that ruling was very weak.

 

the state does not provide rights, it cannot take them away. and in an ironic twist. that ruling just put it at the state level. where peoples votes have way more weight. 

 

 

Hoax.  That ruling said that the constitution does not contain a right to privacy.  After the same court had a contrary opinion for decades. 

[716er]

37 minutes ago, Bandito said:

Propaganda? You are spewing propaganda! Lies and deceits about the vax and it's efficacy and affect on society.

The lie is “they” forced vaccines on “everyone”

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Beats me.  What you’re trying to say is that if no government issues such weapons to servicemembers, then the gun can’t be a weapon of war.  So what is war?  A declared conflict?  A terrorist action?  Harm inflicted by a lone wolf?  A militia action?  The point is that war can be conducted by an entity other than uniformed military, so I don’t ascribe to the point you’re attempting to make. 

Hoax.  That ruling said that the constitution does not contain a right to privacy.  After the same court had a contrary opinion for decades. 

in this country, by both houses of congress. its spelled out.

Shoot, in this country we have war zone level gun crime in many cities. its ignored for the most part. doesnt fit an agenda or something.  So like that non military entity? they use mostly handguns.

 

Having Row be a right under the privacy clause is why she said it was on weak standing

 

 

 

 

[Matt_In_NH]

So we need a thread to talk about forms you fill out to buy a gun?

[Tommy Callahan]

5 minutes ago, 716er said:

The lie is “they” forced vaccines on “everyone”

oh, they tried. if it wasn't for the courts at the 11th hour.

and we wont even get into how many took them cause the voices were threatening they Would loose their jobs if not vaccinated

 

 

[SectionC3]

39 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

in this country, by both houses of congress. its spelled out.

Shoot, in this country we have war zone level gun crime in many cities. its ignored for the most part. doesnt fit an agenda or something.  So like that non military entity? they use mostly handguns.

 

Having Row be a right under the privacy clause is why she said it was on weak standing

 

 

 

 

Hoax.  There is no privacy clause.  It’s the penumbra to which you refer. 

[716er]

If “they” forced the vaccines on “everyone” then “everyone” would have been vaccinated.

 

Millions and millions of Americans are unvaccinated.

 

Facts are facts.

 

 

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, Bandito said:

They did and lied about the effectiveness of them. It is not even a vaccine. It is a shot or therapeutic. The rhetoric and lies about the devils serum from the left are what totalitarian regimes do. Thankfully many athletes including Cole Beasley stood their ground and spoke the truth. They are modern day Muhammad Ali's. Yet are vilified for speaking the truth. The media censored truth to promote a globalist agenda and take over of our nation. It is very sickening to watch.

Hoax.  I don’t get sick watching it.  Probably because I’m vaccinated.  You should try it sometime.  Or maybe your lungs can turn to glue if you get COVID.  Not my concern, so long as you don’t gum up our hospital system or use public monies in your treatment. 

[Big Blitz]

7 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

Alex Jones is angry and serious and yells.  He has “sources”….the amount of people who go along with him is astonishing.   

What cable news station do you watch?

 

 

I don't watch TV "news."  

[ArdmoreRyno]

52 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

So we need a thread to talk about forms you fill out to buy a gun?

 

We can! lol

 

Thing is, many people who are for gun control (or more of it) have little to no understanding on firearms or the laws we currently have, let alone how you go through buying one.

 

I've said it on the Guns thread... we have people, on both sides, who have no clue. My dad, a devout conservatives, even thought things like "You can get a gun at a gun show and they don't require any background checks at those shows, unlike a gun shop... and... you can convert a firearm to a machine gun by changing a button." Even Fox News gets firearm stuff completely wrong more often than right.

[716er]

14 minutes ago, Bandito said:

Did you respond to this with your mask on? If you can't see how people were forced to take it, then you are a lost soul. A beta male. A sheep who can't handle truth.

 

Millions of people were forced to take it or face threat of losing their jobs, and not be able to live freely as they did before (see vaccine passports in NYC and other major liberal cities). All this for a virus that had a 99.94% survival rate. 

“A beta male. A sheep who can’t handle truth.”

 

You sound like an absolute moron.

 

You have been brainwashed. 

[716er]

Above is another example of the brainwashing discussed in the first post. This guy is unhinged. 

[Doc]

Oh, the hypocrisy!

[All_Pro_Bills]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

I think sources of propaganda are a key component of the subject here.   The topic is very detailed though.   I am not sure about the rich guy you are talking about.  
 

I feel strongly about stop the steal because it is complete bull crap and that has been proven in court time and again.    He had every opportunity to prove a case and the opposite has happened… nothing but made up nonsense.  The opposite is actually true he tried to steal the election and I guess you like that because you like him.  Is that a hardline?  So be it.  I also have a hard line position on student loans you can go to that thread and read my position there.  The “progressive” stuff is also nonsense.  
 

I don’t think trumps win in 2016 was illegitimate.  He identified and influenced the right people to get the win, it was shocking and ultimately brought out how powerful social media is.  

So, circling back on this topic before you move on.  You brought up the divisive nature of politics, wondering if it was purposeful etc.  You were decent enough to acknowledge the legitimacy of Trump's election, something most of the d-leaning folks don't do here. They typically ignore that issue, occasionally suggest they don't want to talk about that sort of politicking, then mumble something about cults and posters past.  

 

Here's my question for you.  If you agree that Trump was elected fairly, how do you square up leaders of the democrat party literally claiming he was not the legitimate President of the US?  How do you square up the former head of the CIA claiming he was guilty of treason?  How do those actions not impact trust and confidence for democrat and undecided voters at election time?   Hillary Clinton, and the DNC of course, worked directly with a foreign national to spread disinformation about her opponent, and were accused of (and settled) election integrity issues because of it. 

 

Do you see that as normal election banter, the back and forth that we see at election time?  No big deal?  Or, perhaps, it's something you find unsavory but felt it was appropriate to have two completely different standards in an attempt to defeat Trump?

 

I guess from sitting here and reading what you've shared, I'd think you would be outraged by the behavior of the dems from 2016-today.  In fact, the WH press secretary was questioned about her comments that Trump stole the election back in 2016, which certainly would seem to cause faith in our election process.  

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

21 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

This is exactly what I am talking about, you can only see it one way.   If I asked you which side, the left or right actually tried to unconstitutionally steal he presidential election, what would you answer?  This is absolutely backed up by facts in terms of 60 some odd court cases in which every nook, cranny, theory was brought to court and there was no substantial fraud found which could have influenced the election. Those are facts.

Sure , if you buy the Democrats lies. Fact : unverifiable paper ballots were mailed unsolicited. Fact : the Democrat party fought tooth and nail against any and all means of verifying the validity of these ballots , signatures etc. Fact : a U.S. Presidential election had never before consisted of so many paper ballots. So yes, if you ignore this and say no substantial fraud was found you are kidding yourself. The fraud was these ballots and that they were allowed to be used. Since they were allowed, no fraud was “ found”  it simply was allowed to take place right under our noses because the Democrat machine made sure of it.  Trump had sizable leads in swing states and they miraculously evaporated when all the phony paper “ ballots” were counted. The steal happened and was executed by the Democrat party. 

5 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

I think sources of propaganda are a key component of the subject here.   The topic is very detailed though.   I am not sure about the rich guy you are talking about.  
 

I feel strongly about stop the steal because it is complete bull crap and that has been proven in court time and again.    He had every opportunity to prove a case and the opposite has happened… nothing but made up nonsense.  The opposite is actually true he tried to steal the election and I guess you like that because you like him.  Is that a hardline?  So be it.  I also have a hard line position on student loans you can go to that thread and read my position there.  The “progressive” stuff is also nonsense.  
 

I don’t think trumps win in 2016 was illegitimate.  He identified and influenced the right people to get the win, it was shocking and ultimately brought out how powerful social media is.  

Trumps win in 2016 had zero to do with social media. It had a lot to do with Hillary Clinton , her putrid ideas and her outright dismissal of many Americans as “ deplorable”. 

[Orlando Tim]

We are being divided intentionally because so many people worry more about kindness than truth. We would rather lie and state "most secure election of all time" when it is absurd than admit the fact that our opposition got something correct. Right now some people are still arguing that the lockdowns through most of 2021 were a good idea, when there is no evidence it saved many lives and lots of evidence it damaged the lives of almost everyone else. It would be mean to point out that we screwed up apparently.

[Matt_In_NH]

15 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

 

Trumps win in 2016 had zero to do with social media. It had a lot to do with Hillary Clinton , her putrid ideas and her outright dismissal of many Americans as “ deplorable”. 

This is simply wrong.  Not sure if you think social media having an affect somehow changes how it should be perceived or something but it is well known that Trump had a very sophisticated targeted ad technique that absolutely had an influence.

[reddogblitz]

6 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Yea ok - sure - maybe. Would you say you’re off to a good start with the most recent elections? 

 

You really are stuck living in the pre-Roe era…

 

 

 

"Protest is Patriotic"

 

Does that apply to 1/6 too?

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

"Protest is Patriotic"

 

Does that apply to 1/6 too?

 

Sure but that wasn't the plan for 1/6 after attendees were incited by speakers, Trump and Proud Boys circling the Ellipse:

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

22 minutes ago, Matt_In_NH said:

This is simply wrong.  Not sure if you think social media having an affect somehow changes how it should be perceived or something but it is well known that Trump had a very sophisticated targeted ad technique that absolutely had an influence.

Trump’s win wasn’t about a technique or advertising. It was about policy. His ideas made sense and appeal strongly to a large segment of Americans who see through the Democrats lies and policies of lunacy. Also their hatred of American ideals , capitalism and Caucasian Americans.