The world was #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up long before Trump became President. None of "leaders" were able to un#^&#^&#^&#^& it.

Are you talking about the actual fake news about the Haitian official who is still alive or the GOP traitor Smith who was coordinating with Russian hackers?

you mean Assault-Style Rifle.....

murder is murder motivation only gives people excuses to why it happend.. so they can ignore the hows

Correct.

Hey (not to hijack the thread) I was wondering what you thought of girls into the Boy Scouts...I work with a guy who is very conservative, and he is a local scout leader, his two boys are both close to Eagle Scout. He's fine with it. He said den meetings and overnight trips will be unisex, and his take was that if the Girl Scouts don't want to change to accommodate parents who want girls to do more than sell cookies, better that the girls learn the good values with the Boy Scouts, then not be exposed to those positive values. I have 3 in cub scouts this year, all having a good time. My wife is getting really involved, she loves it, she is the den leader for the first graders.

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
whats thats not a true statement ^^^^ thats what got Trump voted in

No its not true its complete BS the media is not attacking Christians in America... they are not oppressed ... they dont mind being the oppressors

What Obama said is pure bullsh*t, and sentiment like that (and Hilary's deplorables comment) is a big part of why he got elected. Like you, many on th elkeft haven't figured that out yet, and come Next November, you may pay a price for that.

"the media is not attacking Christians in America"

I completely disagree. For example, liberals don't ever concede that Christians who are opposed to abortion, do so out of compassion. Nope, according to the media, we are trying to oppose women's health. The overwhelming majority of religious references in the liberal media, are unfavorable.

"they are not oppressed "

Tell that to the Christian bakers who don't want to participate in gay weddings (which is obviously a first amendment right in some cases), who are attacked.

"they dont mind being the oppressors"

You are actually proving my point better than I ever could. Your animosity towards Christianity is glaring...Out of curiosity, where exactly, are Christians the oppressors today in this country?

Of course Christians are far from perfect, and suffer from all the evil and wickedness that effects everyone else. But in a big picture sense? Christian principles led to the founding of the country, they led to the abolishment of slavery, and they led to the end of segregation. Funny how libs like to forget history, some of it not ancient history, when they describe Christianity. It's pure hate.

Do you really dispute that true Christians (the ones who actually believe what they hear in church, and act accordingly) don't cause fewer problems for society? The people who volunteer at soup kitchen and who read to sick children at the hospital...you don't think they commit less crime, you don't think they abandon their kids at lower rates, than the general public?

QUOTE=Got Stripers;1131128]I'll go, I"m sure others like me were thinking it would only be a short time until another (yeah non Muslim, non radicalized) person with a life experience or two recent or past, that would push him or her over the edge. And of course the lucky recipients of their anger are unfortunate that they have access to an arsenal of assault type rifles and even without the advantages of the bump stocks that did so much damage in Vegas, they easily and quickly kill dozens or more.

I think that environmentalists should prefer mass killings rather than one-at-a-time types. Overpopulation leads to human pollution of the planet. We need more of those human cleansing incidents and conditions--mass killings, abortions, gay marriage, gender displacements, war/pestilence/famine/and hunger, More ideologies like Islam, and restrictive laws to keep us controlled and in place, in order to reduce the population and keep it down.

Assault weapons should be considered a good thing.

Like I said in one of the other threads, I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger. We legislate the amount of fertilizer you can buy, we legislate seat belt laws, the amount of alcohol you can legally have in order to drive, all to save a life or two; I think it's time to legislate some sensible gun laws to save thousands every year.

The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save thousands of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. Would be kind of hard to enforce without the use of guns. But, the only gun law able to stop thousands or single digits of deaths is to eliminate the existence of guns. That would, without a need for further legislation, disarm everyone including, and especially, all governments.


Our founding fathers just finished a bloody war, against what they viewed as a tyrannical government, which was the reason they penned 27 words to insure they could form a militia and have the arms to do so. Does anyone really see any circumstance in our lifetime or your kids, where we need to take up arms against our own government?

The 2A helps to make sure that we don't have to fight our own government. That's the whole point of it. To ensure government doesn't remove itself from the bonds the Founders placed it. Before the British government tried to change things, the colonists too were in a place where it didn't seem necessary to defend against government tyranny. So they had to scramble to fight against it when it showed up. They learned the hard way the need of prevention, rather than waiting for disaster to occur in order to mobilize against it.

Also consider their time and place, where aside from a cannon position from a fort or ship, they were all basically playing on the same single shot playing field.

So when Gatling guns were created for military use, what happened to the playing field?

Imagine your a responsible father or grandfather and your AR's are properly locked away and safe from all.....or so you thought. Like many parents, we are sometimes blindsided by finding out what some of our teens or young sons and daughters are dealing with, be it bullying, drugs, rape, PTSD; you pick a life changing emotional experience. Imagine getting the call at work from the FBI wanting to talk to you, asking you how your son or daughter had access (locks aren't a guarantee) to your AR rifles, then asking if you have seen the news?

Be safe and check your locks boys.[/QUOTE]

Most of the bad stuff you talk about, to the extent that it can be prevented by government, is avoidable to the greatest extent under dictatorial governments.

I think its idiotic. The BSA already had a coed program called Ventures. They do the same things as the Boy Scouts plus a few more things that the Boy Scouts can't do (i.e. shoot hand guns, snow mobiles).

This was just caving to pressure because people get all butt-hurt over the word "Boy"

Even the Girl Scouts were upset about it. Girl Scouts can do all the things boy scouts can do if they want. I personally know a GS leader that takes her girls Hiking and Camping.

It will be good for the kids. The gender disassociation early will lead to stronger adults, less harassment etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't argue with that either, thanks!

Well, considering it looks like you already disassociated from your gender. The jury is still out on how that's going :rude:

:spin:

It isn't being reported because that antifa connection is fake. B.S. Made up. Fabricated. The same way the russians made up hundreds of fake stories to spread on the facebook. God help us. We are doomed.

Have you seen his shoe collection? I
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Legen- (hope your not lactose intolerant)-dairy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the worst snipet of BS drivel I've heard in a while. Congratulations. :claps:

A good guy with a gun stopped a madman with a gun.


Horrible atrocity that could have been worse. I say good for the good guy with the AR-15 for shooting back and killing the guy. In case you don't know if you were spoon fed the narrative the news is trying to give us that it was suicide because more firearms were in his car, the guy bled out from his wounds while the 2 good guys waited for police.

When you take on the responsibility of gun ownership, you are obsessive about locks Bob, no need for a reminder to check locks, I suggest arm yourself. The more people that are armed, the better. This isn't the first mass shooting and won't be the last sadly, it is just the latest. And a horrible one at that.

Not in my neighborhoods - we went out but ()*#(#*$@ sure locked the doors

Some of it is , some of it isn't, some simply too early to tell.

Cough, Salon, cough

It seems he was dishonorably discharged from AF for his domestic violence and it appears Texas denied him a purchase because of DV history.

Unfortunately multiple ways for people that should not have them to get them. One of the reasons why people get them legally - and jump through all the hoops - to provide safety for their loved ones.

I'm mixed. Opportunity for girls to get Eagle is great, impacts on how it may disrupt the programs now could be a negative. Bring the Eagle to Venture and allow girls to track there?

Must remember Spence trolls.

Most of the bad stuff you talk about, to the extent that it can be prevented by government, is avoidable to the greatest extent under dictatorial governments.[/QUOTE]

Again I feel sorry for you and your view of where our government and society is, must be tough on you to see where your kids and grand-kids are in a couple decades. Do I like our government today, not in the least, but I'm not looking at the glass half empty. We need change and I'm 110% convinced term limits is the exact change needed, but if that happens; I'd suggest to you the interpretation of the 2nd amendment will likely change to a more realistic one in light of our time and place and not one living in the past like you.

The AR platform meets the 2nd Amendment protection criteria established by SCOTUS better than any other type of firearm.

That criteria is, to boil it down, how well the gun performs in battle, IOW, killing people. To have the possession and use of the gun protected, the gun must be of a type:

In common use at the time by the general citizenry and that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

This protection criteria is a direct outcome of the "right to arms" being linked to militia service.

It has been the intransigence of the collectivist left that has kept the right connected to militia usefulness while the gun rights side has been trying to separate the two for 3/4 of a century now.

Are you saying now, that you want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so the right to arms can be formally divorced from any militia usefulness standard for arms protection, while you promise that we would be allowed to keep some sporting arms and others that don't offend you?

Why would we (gun rights people) accept such a disingenuous premise? Do you really think you speak from a position of trust, tolerance and respect on the subject of preservation of rights? You obviously hold my rights in disdain and contempt so pardon me while I tell you to KMA.

Thanks for your concern about my manhood and my outlook for the future but I'll just retain my rights, all of them in their current condition, with hopes for expansion.

QUOTE=Got Stripers;1131128]I'll go, I"m sure others like me were thinking it would only be a short time until another (yeah non Muslim, non radicalized) person with a life experience or two recent or past, that would push him or her over the edge. And of course the lucky recipients of their anger are unfortunate that they have access to an arsenal of assault type rifles and even without the advantages of the bump stocks that did so much damage in Vegas, they easily and quickly kill dozens or more.

Originally Posted by detbuch:

I think that environmentalists should prefer mass killings rather than one-at-a-time types. Overpopulation leads to human pollution of the planet. We need more of those human cleansing incidents and conditions--mass killings, abortions, gay marriage, gender displacements, war/pestilence/famine/and hunger, More ideologies like Islam, and restrictive laws to keep us controlled and in place, in order to reduce the population and keep it down.

Assault weapons should be considered a good thing.

Wow, not much I can say to that, I'm sure the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of the children killed in this latest AR carnage will find comfort in your empathy. I hope you don't loose the other screws holding you together, I also hope that you too are armed to the teeth, because those are some scary and evil sentiments. Also for one who has such a fear of big government, I'd suggest you better watch what you type, homeland security is looking for text just like that; no doubt those statements fits the profile of many that might be on their radar.

Uuhhh . . . my post was, like . . . sarcasm. With a bit of a poke at some greeny contradiction. I apologize if I mislead you. On the other hand, your responses are interesting. A bit myopic, but interesting.

Like I said in one of the other threads, I'd be worried about someone just like anyone on this board with access to these types of weapons, with a life changing experience putting them in a very dark place with a need to vent that anger.

Maybe you should take some pills to help you with your anxiety issue.

We legislate the amount of fertilizer you can buy, we legislate seat belt laws, the amount of alcohol you can legally have in order to drive, all to save a life or two; I think it's time to legislate some sensible gun laws to save thousands every year.


Minor problem is, unlike fertilizer, seatbelts, and alcohol, there is this little thing relating to guns referred to as the Second Amendment. I realize that you believe we should get "sensible" about that Amendment, but that would take another Amendment.

As I said "The only gun law, sensible or not, that would save thousands of lives a year would be to outlaw, worldwide, the production of guns. Would be kind of hard to enforce without the use of guns. But, the only gun law able to stop thousands or single digits of deaths is to eliminate the existence of guns. That would, without a need for further legislation, disarm everyone including, and especially, all governments." Good luck with that.


Don't read more into what I'm suggesting, I have no issues with handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns or any other legally purchased firearm in the pursuit of what every warm blooded man or women loves to do. I too loved hunting back when I was younger, but aside from fueling a shortage of testosterone, helping someone deal with a little big man issue or making someone like you with such a dismal view of the future feel more secure; what purpose does the AR assault weapon serve?


Again, it is unfortunate for your sentiments that the 2A was not about hunting or fueling a shortage of testosterone. Actually, AR assault TYPE weapons would be more effective in helping to accomplish what the 2A is about than the other toys with which you have no issue. Those toys, BTW, kill "thousands" more in this country than the AR does. Still don't understand why there is less of an emotional outrage to those far greater numbers killed than by the AR style guns. But it's your choice about what you get outraged.

Our founding fathers just finished a bloody war, against what they viewed as a tyrannical government, which was the reason they penned 27 words to insure they could form a militia and have the arms to do so. Does anyone really see any circumstance in our lifetime or your kids, where we need to take up arms against our own government?

The 2A is a preventative measure which helps to make sure that we don't have to fight our own government. That's the whole point of it. To ensure government doesn't remove itself from the bonds the Founders placed it. Before the British government tried to change things, the colonists also thought, as you do, that they were in a place where it didn't seem necessary to defend against government tyranny. So they had to scramble to fight against it when it showed up. They learned the hard way the need of prevention, rather than waiting for disaster to occur in order to mobilize against it. You know . . . that ounce of prevention thingy.

Again, while we are witnessing a lot of scary stuff, I feel sorry that you have such a depressing view of where our government is or could become.

No need to feel sorry for me. I'm not depressed. I accept reality. And I'm not scared as you seem to be about "scary stuff." Maybe I should feel sorry for you that you view scary stuff. And aren't you one of those who keep telling us how bad it is having Trump as President? About what dangers and depressing things we might be facing because of that? Hmmm . . . pot /kettle syndrome.

Do you really think one leader or some government/military conspiracy to take total control is in the cards, boy how do you sleep at night?


I am less concerned about that than you seem to be of Trump, and unreasonable conservatives.

And if you do and the possibility that the military in it's entirety will actually sign on (tin foil hat tipped here), do you think the small percentage of AR armed civilians are going to stop that?

I've already spoken to the military takeover thing. Don't feel like doing it over and over. If anything, at least at this time, I think the military may be a wall against the destruction of the Constitution. On my "side" more than yours.


Also consider their time and place, where aside from a cannon position from a fort or ship, they were all basically playing on the same single shot playing field.

So when Gatling guns were created for military use, what happened to the playing field?

Imagine your a responsible father or grandfather and your AR's are properly locked away and safe from all.....or so you thought. Like many parents, we are sometimes blindsided by finding out what some of our teens or young sons and daughters are dealing with, be it bullying, drugs, rape, PTSD; you pick a life changing emotional experience. Imagine getting the call at work from the FBI wanting to talk to you, asking you how your son or daughter had access (locks aren't a guarantee) to your AR rifles, then asking if you have seen the news?

Be safe and check your locks boys.
Most of the bad stuff you talk about, to the extent that it can be prevented by government, is avoidable to the greatest extent under dictatorial governments.

Oh, so now we can imagine some possibility--as long as it isn't about stuff like tyranny, dictatorial government, all that nonsense that just can't happen because it just can't.

Again I feel sorry for you and your view of where our government and society is, must be tough on you to see where your kids and grand-kids are in a couple decades.

Again, you needn't feel sorry for me. I am happy, and very much so, in that I don't need your sympathy, nor anything else from you. The only concern I have about you is that you'll vote for someone who wants to "help" me. If I thought it would matter, I'd ask you to consider what a rare thing our Constitution with its checks and balances is, and to have that always be your concern when you vote. But I understand why you consider that thinking a relic of the past.

Do I like our government today, not in the least, but I'm not looking at the glass half empty. We need change and I'm 110% convinced term limits is the exact change needed, but if that happens; I'd suggest to you the interpretation of the 2nd amendment will likely change to a more realistic one in light of our time and place and not one living in the past like you.

It is possible not to appreciate the past. And to forget it. But it is the only thing you can live in. Everything we've just discussed is now in the past. The future cannot exist. Once "it" appears it is past. The present is so fleeting that it takes the past to realize what it is. I suspect death could be that way. It could be too instantaneous to recognize. And death's future may be so empty that life, that ever present past, cannot be remembered.

So the past is our only teacher. If we do not learn from it, we are truly ignorant.


Changing interpretations of an idea is not "realistic." It is the erasure of the idea. A replacement with another idea, not merely another interpretation of it. I'd suggest right back at ya that interpreting the 2A to mean something other than what it has really meant (is reality realistic?) is actually eliminating it. Same goes for the Constitution as a whole. There is no need to suffer under the illusion of maintaining, and abiding by, the Constitution if you don't believe it is "realistic." I'd suggest to you that what you suggest is its illimination. It's alright, actually honest, to admit that. Otherwise your living an illusion, not realistically.

And, BTW, term limits has to be approved by those who will have to limit their terms. Is it "realistic" to expect that to happen? And if it did, how would that preserve the Constitution? And why would that be an assurance that you would get a government that you like?

:claps::claps::claps::claps:

Such spin. The early cases your referring to were decisions in context of militias. Later individual rights cases made no such argument.

This is a complex issue with many opinions and legal contradictions. It's a work in process.

To claim its black and white is just disengenuous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're spin is disingenuous.

The Supreme Court has never endorsed a militia dependent right. The right has always been recognized by SCOTUS to be possessed by individual citizens independent of any militia enrollment status or attchment.

Your chronology is backwards. The "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations first appeared in the federal courts in 1942 in two lower (Circuit) court cases. Those two opinions spun US v Miller (1939) on its head and ignored /dismissed the determinations of SCOTUS to arrive at these new "collective right" interpretations.

Those theories held sway in the lower federal courts and state courts until DC v Heller in 2008, where SCOTUS re-affirmed the individual right, relied on US v Cruikshank (1876) and Miller's precedent -- one prong of Miller's protection criteria (in common use) -- to invalidate DC's statutes and 66 years of lower federal court perversions.

I agree. It will take decades to unwind the dozens of mid-20th Century lower federal court and state court decisions that sustained hundreds of unconstitutional gun control laws.

Says the guy that says a true examination of the issue is TLDR.

To Detbuch,

I'd never suggest we don't learn from the past. I'd also say evolution always wins it's undeniable, to live in the past without change in order to evolve is just ignorant. I only suggest that current events might suggest arms of mass destruction might be better off left in the hands of the military. You suggest I'm fearful, yet you want your AR's to be ready to militia up if the government goes dictator on you; I don't fear that at all you own that fear.

Modern day militia really; that's the argument you own and as usual it's the final 2nd amendment argument; heard it and read it on every thread that's similar. It's the same old argument, 2nd amendment, we have the right, I get it; but is it reasonable today? It made 110% sense then and there, I'd be standing and giving the founding fathers a standing ovation for those 27 words, but times change and only idiots don't accept that fact.

Please don't insult me by giving me that BS argument that the only reasonable change is to ban all guns, what a crock of crap that statement is. I have no issue with guns, or the right to bear them, but if the nut job didn't have access to the AR type rifle, how many lives would have been lost or saved.

If you think you and a hand full of your friends armed with AR assault rifles in your town and the next one over are going to make a bit of difference, then I want some of what you are smoking. The fact that you actually think that will come to be necessary makes you the guy with the fear factor and frankly i choose to have a much more optimistic view on where we as a society can go.

Don't mix my opinion of Trump with this argument, do I agree with the way Trump is governing, absolutely not; but that has nothing to do with this thread. Don't mix my believe in on environmental changes being a larger threat then many believe; again it has nothing to do with this thread. You fear the government and more regulations, then go do something about it, that's the wonderful thing about being an AMERICAN, we can all believe in different things and do our best to make changes by the way we vote and treat our fellow man.

My glass as always is more than half full.

And what year is it now?

Air force dropped the ball never reported his criminal record to the FBI so it was not in his NCIC NICS check. Hard to cover that up

I and many others are with you 100 percent on term limits. It would be nice, but difficult since they are the ones voting themselves raises, exclusive retirement plans, better than we have health care etc.


As far as government tyranny, open your mind, it's already happening right before our eyes. Learn from history, you do NOT want an unarmed public defenseless against tyrannical government.