Donald Trump running for president

[Jiigzz]

These are all the problems and effects of big corrupt central governments controlling the masses of populations. They have no respect for localities and many of them such as Spain are run by big government inhumane dog manure. Small governments catering for the needs of localities and having any bigger Fed. government keeping their primary role for defending peoples individual freedoms and national defense while keeping so small that its barely visible would be far better than the big government ses pool running all these countries as they are today. There is nothing wrong with having 3,000 mini states all over europe.

There being nothing wrong with it is your opinion.

If you are so for it, you should start the movement to break up all the states of the US first and trial it for everyone else.A lot of your posts are based on emotion, not facts. You loosely use facts to back up random and obscure arguments but the real reason is emotion.

Use facts, not emotion.

 

[CJNator]

is what accurate?

The type of government, I do recall someone having a bad taste for monarchy yet if it is working for Australia then it should be no problem for the US except I’d prefer fascism since there’s no royalty in the US.

 

[ax1]

Same here. I couldn't care less. But it has to benefit the people. If a country cuts ties, that could start a chain reaction for other, much smaller countries. The problem then is that the economy could collapse in all countries affected.

There is a lot to consider when a state secedes from its parent - and it can have far wider impact than what the general population could understand.

Your right, it would collapse and people need to be prepared for a economic crisis and plan its bounce back.

Things get more complicated of course in areas where there are far more limited natural resources or skills, so I dunno.

If it was me I wouldnt be seeking independence in this modern era, but rather government reform (small centralized power) and statehood and keep central government as a very close brother. I think that would be far more successful than becoming a separate country in the short term at least. Of course, a smaller region reforming central government and getting the rest of the country to go along is not easy cake either...which is why they seek pure independence I guess, they may see that as a more realistic possibility.

 

[CJNator]

Whatever they are, they have been doing an incredible job protecting their borders from various foreign threats and illegal immigration.

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

I’m not sure if their illegal immigration or foreign threats are a issue there so I’m not sure if this is sarcasm or not lol especially with the gifs.

 

[ax1]

There being nothing wrong with it is your opinion.

If you are so for it, you should start the movement to break up all the states of the US first and trial it for everyone else.A lot of your posts are based on emotion, not facts. You loosely use facts to back up random and obscure arguments but the real reason is emotion.

Use facts, not emotion.

What works here is that we are originally designed to be multiple countries serving the needs of the localities. Then state executives run the show, not Washington. Washington's primary role is supposed to be primarily minding their own business only overseeing the states follow the US Constitution. The states are then broken up to counties where each county also has its own elected executive, and each village has a mayor and they have their powers too to serve the needs of the locals. Unfortunately the Federal government naturally grows its power and influence over the states which is something I fight against with my vote.

So yes, why I need to trial breaking up the US when its already broken up, ROFL!!!!!!!! Its supposed to be that way, because it works.

I dont know, you wanna call that emotion and opinion I call that expressing my understanding of limited centralized powers and using the example of the worlds longest running democracy and most powerful country. If you want a fact, what we have been doing has been working quite well since 1776 even with all the problems that have run the country down since.

 

[ax1]

I’m not sure if their illegal immigration or foreign threats are a issue there so I’m not sure if this is sarcasm or not lol especially with the gifs.

Its just one of my points I make over and over about the US having different far more complicated problems than Australia. So yea I post the gif's for laughs but I really meant the point behind it in all honesty.

 

[Jiigzz]

I’m not sure if their illegal immigration or foreign threats are a issue there so I’m not sure if this is sarcasm or not lol especially with the gifs.

Of course they are. People have boats and planes. You guys will soon have a giant wall.

 

[Jiigzz]

Its just one of my points I make over and over about the US having different far more complicated problems than Australia. So yea I post the gif's for laughs but I really meant the point behind it in all honesty.

But this is your argument to ANYTHING questioned about the US.

 

[CJNator]

Its just one of my points I make over and over about the US having different far more complicated problems than Australia. So yea I post the gif's for laughs but I really meant the point behind it in all honesty.

The US would be better off with a better system of governing. I don’t remember nor do I have any of the information but I know someone a while back on Facebook that took the time to correlate homicide numbers and gun ownership in the US plus other countries. He concluded that the US is unique with these correlations, that there is something different here compared to other countries.

I assume it’s because the US is a melting pot of cultures so the government and nation as a organism is a lot more complicated then others being a fairly new nation still.

 

[ax1]

There being nothing wrong with it is your opinion.

If you are so for it, you should start the movement to break up all the states of the US first and trial it for everyone else.A lot of your posts are based on emotion, not facts. You loosely use facts to back up random and obscure arguments but the real reason is emotion.

Use facts, not emotion.

We started this trial in 1776 and still running it, and the globe..... how is that for emotion?

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Jiigzz]

What works here is that we are originally designed to be multiple countries serving the needs of the localities. Then state executives run the show, not Washington. Washington's primary role is supposed to be primarily minding their own business only overseeing the states follow the US Constitution. The states are then broken up to counties where each county also has its own elected executive, and each village has a mayor and they have their powers too to serve the needs of the locals. Unfortunately the Federal government naturally grows its power and influence over the states which is something I fight against with my vote.

So yes, why I need to trial breaking up the US when its already broken up, ROFL!!!!!!!! Its supposed to be that way, because it works.

I dont know, you wanna call that emotion and opinion I call that expressing my understanding of limited centralized powers and using the example of the worlds longest running democracy and most powerful country. If you want a fact, what we have been doing has been working quite well since 1776 even with all the problems that have run the country down since.

It isn't. They are state with their own powers to some respect, but still under federal jurisdiction. Texas can't just 'leave' that behind like it wanted to. So again, why don't you try remove yourself from the reigns of Washington and Federal control and see how far you get. So no, it's not already 'broken up'.

Do you still think you;d be as powerful as you are now with all your states separated? You'd like to see it everywhere else but your own country where you don't have to live with the consequences. Your GDP will crumble without combined states, and your power comes from all states working together.

And If we mean by longets running demoncracy you mean, 'Which country has ensured that all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity, may choose reprentatives to exercise the powers of government longest?', then the answer is New Zealand. Universal adult suffrage was first established there in 1893.

So eh, think again. Democracy is only democracy when everybody gets the right to vote. The US isn't even near the top of the list for that one, after all, it is actually a Republic.

 

[ax1]

The US would be better off with a better system of governing. I don’t remember nor do I have any of the information but I know someone a while back on Facebook that took the time to correlate homicide numbers and gun ownership in the US plus other countries. He concluded that the US is unique with these correlations, that there is something different here compared to other countries.

I assume it’s because the US is a melting pot of cultures so the government and nation as a organism is a lot more complicated then others being a fairly new nation still.

Im not so sure it needs a better system of governing. The problem is we already have a system but its governed illegally. So with that logic any system in place would just be on paper and governed differently.

The place to start is real accountability of our politicians when they break their oath of office, only then we can have America hit new heights. Unfortunately we wont have that until we at least wipe out the Demicans and Republicrats duopoly party

 

[Jiigzz]

Im not so sure it needs a better system of governing. The problem is we already have a system but its governed illegally. So with that logic any system in place would just be on paper and governed differently.

The place to start is real accountability of our politicians when they break their oath of office, only then we can have America hit new heights. Unfortunately we wont have that until we at least wipe out the Demicans and Republicrats duopoly party

I can agree with your last statement.

 

[ax1]

It isn't. They are state with their own powers to some respect, but still under federal jurisdiction. Texas can't just 'leave' that behind like it wanted to. So again, why don't you try remove yourself from the reigns of Washington and Federal control and see how far you get. So no, it's not already 'broken up'.

Do you still think you;d be as powerful as you are now with all your states separated? You'd like to see it everywhere else but your own country where you don't have to live with the consequences.

And If we mean by longets running demoncracy you mean, 'Which country has ensured that all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity, may choose reprentatives to exercise the powers of government longest?', then the answer is New Zealand. Universal adult suffrage was first established there in 1893.

So eh, think again. Democracy is only democracy when everybody gets the right to vote. The US isn't even near the top of the list for that one, after all, it is actually a Republic.

There is nothing wrong with Federal Jurisdiction when the Federal government is actually following their Constitutional obligations.

Yes, its a Republic, I appear to be one of the few people defending it as a Republic, you on the other hand have no respect for that with your anti-second Amendment stances.

Having a bunch of States run as mini-countries competing with each other is terrific, the Federal Government really has no role in the economy anyways. They can go to hell, they barely serve any purpose other purpose other than Constitutional oversight of the state and national defense. I dunno what you think the big deal is.

 

[ax1]

And If we mean by longets running demoncracy you mean, 'Which country has ensured that all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity, may choose reprentatives to exercise the powers of government longest?', then the answer is New Zealand. Universal adult suffrage was first established there in 1893.

So eh, think again. Democracy is only democracy when everybody gets the right to vote. The US isn't even near the top of the list for that one, after all, it is actually a Republic.

Maybe I was wrong calling it the worlds longest running democracy, It is a Constitutional republic. If 80% vote to take my rights away that cannot happen. I happen to like it that way.

We got you beat by the way when it comes to race. Sex was in 1920 but Im not so sure the original constitution actually limited anyone from voting I have to look into that. Laws were in place to enforce it of course.

The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

 

[Jiigzz]

There is nothing wrong with Federal Jurisdiction when the Federal government is actually following their Constitutional obligations.

Yes, its a Republic, I appear to be one of the few people defending it as a Republic, you on the other hand have no respect for that with your anti-second Amendment stances.

Having a bunch of States run as mini-countries competing with each other is terrific, the Federal Government really has no role in the economy anyways. They can go to hell, they barely serve any purpose other purpose other than Constitutional oversight of the state and national defense. I dunno what you think the big deal is.

If you don't see how disestablishing the US into multiple mini countries will affect the economy of the US, then this discussion cannot go further. Everything you say works in theory , but the reality can be very different

 

[thebigt]

If you don't see how disestablishing the US into multiple mini countries will affect the economy of the US, then this discussion cannot go further. Everything you say works in theory , but the reality can be very different

the same could be said for gun control in the u.s. theoretically it could work, but in the real world-NOT

 

[ax1]

Do you still think you;d be as powerful as you are now with all your states separated? You'd like to see it everywhere else but your own country where you don't have to live with the consequences. Your GDP will crumble without combined states, and your power comes from all states working together.

We are actually living the negative consequences of massive Federal government power increases over the states, yet this is what you defend. If we eliminated all the powers the Federal Government has seized over the US economy and the abolished the illegal non-Federal Reserve of course the all the states GDP all would crumble....thats because of the centralized government takeover and its current temporary dependency. This would only be temporary. With competition, having a real currency backed by gold and silver, and the power of a real free market economy the potential is limitless. And the best part about it, if 1 state becomes a big government socialist ses-pool and collapses it wont sink the whole ship, unlike the way it has been set up to this modern era of too much Federal government dependency artificially propped up economies (quantitative easing for example.) People will also have freedom of options further increasing state competition and success as a whole.

Its not really a big deal, the world will be fine and we can all keep our grenade launchers. All is well.

 

[CJNator]

Im not so sure it needs a better system of governing. The problem is we already have a system but its governed illegally. So with that logic any system in place would just be on paper and governed differently.

The place to start is real accountability of our politicians when they break their oath of office, only then we can have America hit new heights. Unfortunately we wont have that until we at least wipe out the Demicans and Republicrats duopoly party

What do you mean governed illegally? Also a better system of governing would hold those unworthy of holding any official positioning accountable for their actions. I know fascism isn’t popular and so isn’t Nazism(I am not for Nazism) but within both government types in history there were many individuals in positions of power that were dealt with when it came to incompetence/going against their government and nation, possibly wrongly due to the agenda of said government but either way they were dealt with.

It’s the politicians and non elected staff that are the issue, there are many many issues in the US. Too many that can be fixed with just government intervention or less government intervention. It goes beyond petty politics, it’s all start at the heart of the individual and what lies there.

The US is based off materialism with is why we will fall to the rat race Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

If you don't see how disestablishing the US into multiple mini countries will affect the economy of the US, then this discussion cannot go further. Everything you say works in theory , but the reality can be very different

Well, no it cant go further with you because you see it differently. You always have seen a big massive centralized government as a backbone of your political and economical philosophy.

If there is anything going wrong here, its me as I failed to get my point across on here well enough.

 

[ax1]

What do you mean governed illegally? Also a better system of governing would hold those unworthy of holding any official positioning accountable for their actions. I know fascism isn’t popular and so isn’t Nazism(I am not for Nazism) but within both government types in history there were many individuals in positions of power that were dealt with when it came to incompetence/going against their government and nation, possibly wrongly due to the agenda of said government but either way they were dealt with.

It’s the politicians and non elected staff that are the issue, there are many many issues in the US. Too many that can be fixed with just government intervention or less government intervention. It goes beyond petty politics, it’s all start at the heart of the individual and what lies there.

The US is based off materialism with is why we will fall to the rat race Invalid Link Removed

We have a Bill of Right and Constitution.....our elected officials take oath of office to protect and defend the Constition and they shyt all over it all the time. There is no accountability for crimes and treason. That is what I meant by governing illegally.

I put blame on the US voter for consistently re-electing this ses-pool that has held this country hostage for decades, but all that is slowly changing.

 

[CJNator]

We have a Bill of Right and Constitution.....our elected officials take oath of office to protect and defend the Constition and they shyt all over it all the time. There is no accountability for crimes and treason. That is what I meant by governing illegally.

I put blame on the US voter for consistently re-electing this ses-pool that has held this country hostage for decades, but all that is slowly changing.

Well it’s because that’s what the people want, everyone wants to make their personal life better rather than make everyone else’s better by changing the government from inside. People are too lazy or selfish and only care about currency as a means of quality rather then spirit and heart. By selfish I mean no one is willing to put time in to change with system, people are only willing to spend money or vote(which requires little to no effort at all which is why I say lazy)to help the nation rather than join up and change the system.

There’s Texas but Texas is its own entity basically, the culture there is amazing and shouldn’t be apart of the US.

The constitution is up for interpretation, which is a reality because people deem it so, the law of the land should not be up for interpretation but under a liberal democratic constitutional republic it is. Under an authoritarian regime it would not be up for interpretation and I’m sure most of the US would agree. The people have too much freedom that it’s taken advantage of by many. Freedom should be earned not given.

 

[Jiigzz]

the same could be said for gun control in the u.s. theoretically it could work, but in the real world-NOT

Actually the argument would be applied in reversed. In theory it wouldn't work, but in reality it would

 

[Jiigzz]

Well, no it cant go further with you because you see it differently. You always have seen a big massive centralized government as a backbone of your political and economical philosophy.

If there is anything going wrong here, its me as I failed to get my point across on here well enough.

Because it's the only proof we have of a working system. Try to break it, because until that point you can only speculate it'll be better for everyone. But my money is on not.

 

[Aleksandar37]

There’s Texas but Texas is its own entity basically, the culture there is amazing and shouldn’t be apart of the US.

.

Where in Texas have you been?

 

[CJNator]

Where in Texas have you been?

I haven’t been there yet but a buddy of mine lived there and he was telling me about how nice people are and just everything about it. I’m planning to go there in the future to see for myself.

 

[Aleksandar37]

I haven’t been there yet but a buddy of mine lived there and he was telling me about how nice people are and just everything about it. I’m planning to go there in the future to see for myself.

Well before I moved here, I assumed it was a bunch of people riding horses and gathering around to watch people get put into the electric chair, but Texas really can't be grouped together as one homogeneous place. City to city can be extremely different. If Texas became it's own country, it'd probably still have the same problems the US already faces. There are good people everywhere in the world and there are ****ty people everywhere in the world.

 

[CJNator]

Well before I moved here, I assumed it was a bunch of people riding horses and gathering around to watch people get put into the electric chair, but Texas really can't be grouped together as one homogeneous place. City to city can be extremely different. If Texas became it's own country, it'd probably still have the same problems the US already faces. There are good people everywhere in the world and there are ****ty people everywhere in the world.

Yea all places will have issues and I understand it’s isn’t ethically homogeneous but national pride(which would pertain to cultural homogeneity)is strong and that’s all is needed to keep a nation stable and as organic as possible. Plus it’s size is a factor for longevity too. Also if Texas wasn’t bound by US laws it probably can fixed itself better.

 

[thebigt]

Actually the argument would be applied in reversed. In theory it wouldn't work, but in reality it would

in your dreams...you obviously know very little about the US of A.....

 

[Jiigzz]

in your dreams...you obviously know very little about the US of A.....

Well I know you love guns lol

 

[Aleksandar37]

Yea all places will have issues and I understand it’s isn’t ethically homogeneous but national pride(which would pertain to cultural homogeneity)is strong and that’s all is needed to keep a nation stable and as organic as possible. Plus it’s size is a factor for longevity too. Also if Texas wasn’t bound by US laws it probably can fixed itself better.

National pride of what nation?!?! Are you talking about the Mexicans or the people that want to secede? There's no cultural homogeneity here either. Afraid you've been misinformed.

 

[CJNator]

Actually the argument would be applied in reversed. In theory it wouldn't work, but in reality it would

Distrust in the government wouldn’t allow it to work, it’ll only increase crime. As government power increases distrust increases too as does the idea of revolution. No one actually wants things to work, they want ideas to work yet ideas are only ideas.

 

[thebigt]

questions raised as mandalay bay security guard jose campos cancels interviews...

there is no jose campos registered as a security guard in Nevada....

when producer's tried to contact campos at his home they were greeted by an armed security guard....

 

[thebigt]

Well I know you love guns lol

exactly, you just made my point!!!

knowing how much we love guns in this country what makes you think gun control would work?

 

[Jiigzz]

exactly, you just made my point!!!

knowing how much we love guns in this country what makes you think gun control would work?

What exactly do you think gun control is to me? No-one is wanting to take away someones guns, but rather restrict access to those who shouldn't have access to them. Less guns in the hands of criminals = a safer environment. Yes I get that it is illegal for certain people to have access to guns, but I mean actual enforcement etc.

I can own a variety of guns here in NZ, but I need varying levels of licence and ability before I can purchase ones that are not used for recreational purposes. I undergo strict licence regul

So not about to say "restrict all guns, take them all away", if that makes sense?

 

[CJNator]

National pride of what nation?!?! Are you talking about the Mexicans or the people that want to secede? There's no cultural homogeneity here either. Afraid you've been misinformed.

What I mean is state pride. What I’ve been told is that a lot of people fly the Texas flag either alone or along side the American flag.

 

[thebigt]

What exactly do you think gun control is? No-one is wanting to take away someones guns, but rather restrict access to those who shouldn't have access to them. Less guns in the hands of criminals = a safer environment.

I can own a variety of guns here in NZ, but I need varying levels of licence and ability before I can purchase ones that are not used for recreational purposes.

what makes you think no-one is wanting to take away guns?

nancy Pelosi said she hopes that banning bump stocks is a slippery slope, what do you think her final objective would be?


the nra gets support because they see every concession leading to more and more.....

 

[muscleupcrohn]

What exactly do you think gun control is? No-one is wanting to take away someones guns, but rather restrict access to those who shouldn't have access to them. Less guns in the hands of criminals = a safer environment.

I can own a variety of guns here in NZ, but I need varying levels of licence and ability before I can purchase ones that are not used for recreational purposes.

I’m pretty sure that Obama supported a handgun ban (but he may have moved away from that), and I know Feinstein is against pretty much all semi-automatic guns (including handguns). Hillary also is against “assault weapons,” which is largely a made-up term, and is not synonymous with actual assault rifles. Many people “define” an “assault weapon” as any gun, semi-automatic, pump, bolt-action, etc, as a gun with a pistol grip, forward grip, and a number of purely cosmetic characteristics that have nothing to do with functionality. THAT is not the “common sense” gun control we need. We’ve already talked about some things, and I agree some things can be done to improve things, but, the fact is that some, not all, but some, politicians DO want to take away as many guns from as many people as possible, regardless of if they are criminals, mentally unstable, or not. It is not accurate to say that “no-one” is trying to take guns, only “some people” are not.

 

[Jiigzz]

what makes you think no-one is wanting to take away guns?

nancy Pelosi said she hopes that banning bump stocks is a slippery slope, what do you think her final objective would be?


the nra gets support because they see every concession leading to more and more.....

I rephrased my response to you - it should have read, "what do you think I mean by gun control". I realise that might differ from what is proposed, and in that case I 100% agree that it won't work. But let's see 'gun control' from a more middle ground where you still get what you want, but those who shouldnt have guns have a harder, if not impossible time getting access to them

 

[CJNator]

I know we all know that firearms must be controlled but we need a how? If we can’t think about how the firearms can be controlled then how can we expect politicians to do so?

Let’s put our heads together and think of away how then spread the message. Arguments and debates are nice but let’s all join this middle ground that we speak of.

 

[Jiigzz]

I’m pretty sure that Obama supported a handgun ban (but he may have moved away from that), and I know Feinstein is against pretty much all semi-automatic guns (including handguns). Hillary also is against “assault weapons,” which is largely a made-up term, and is not synonymous with actual assault rifles. Many people “define” an “assault weapon” as any gun, semi-automatic, pump, bolt-action, etc, as a gun with a pistol grip, forward grip, and a number of purely cosmetic characteristics that have nothing to do with functionality. THAT is not the “common sense” gun control we need. We’ve already talked about some things, and I agree some things can be done to improve things, but, the fact is that some, not all, but some, politicians DO want to take away as many guns from as many people as possible, regardless of if they are criminals, mentally unstable, or not. It is not accurate to say that “no-one” is trying to take guns, only “some people” are not.

Yeah I get that. I think even ax1 misunderstood my perspective because I don't know everything that is proposed, but you guys do.

Personally, i'd like to see handguns the only gun allowed to be carried, and concealed at that. That's just me though.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yeah I get that. I think even ax1 misunderstood my perspective because I don't know everything that is proposed, but you guys do.

Personally, i'd like to see handguns the only gun allowed to be carried, and concealed at that. That's just me though.

I get it. You can’t be expected to be aware of all the proposed legislation and views of politicians here in the US (not that I know it all, because I don’t haha) any more than I can be expected to know all the goings-on in every other country. I think concealed handgun carry is sufficient. Then of course law-abiding citizens can have shotguns or pistol-caliber carbines (much easier to properly aim with than a handgun for home defense, and without the same risk of over-penetration that rifles often have in urban areas), and rifles do have their place for someone living out in the country or with a large amount of land. I think that an AR-15 or an AK is a poor choice for most home-defense and daily-carry, but that doesn’t mean they should be illegal to own (semi-automatic of course), although I’m not saying you are saying they should be. It’s a similar misconception with hollow points. People think of them as some evil bullets, but they actually help minimize unintended over penetration and collateral damage. A FMJ bullet is more likely to go through the target, or whatever it hits if a shot misses, which can cause unintended damage and injury. Many times, a hollowpoint is both more effective in neutralizing a threat (less energy/force “wasted” by not traveling completely through it and a larger impact), and minimizing over penetration. This is particularly beneficial for urban areas, like home defense in a residential area, as you don’t want shots going through walls into other rooms/buildings/etc.

 

[Jiigzz]

I know we all know that firearms must be controlled but we need a how? If we can’t think about how the firearms can be controlled then how can we expect politicians to do so?

Let’s put our heads together and think of away how then spread the message. Arguments and debates are nice but let’s all join this middle ground that we speak of.

This is just me, and feel free to criticize:

-Stricter licencing and harsher penalties for carry without a permit. having various licences depending on the type of firearm and ammunition (i.e. recreational hunting shotgun or rifle vs an AR-15). More important for guns that require magazines.

-A move away from selling guns in places like walmart, and strictly to gun shops and ammo stores. This may sound silly, but moving alcohol out of supermarkets in West Auckland has dramatically cut down issues around alcohol in my part of the world (westies were notorious for problem drinking). We can still access alcohol, but with less exposure we are having fewer issues

-Conceal carry only, and only handguns for personal protection.

-No further restrictions on the type of guns you can own (same as current)

-Harsher penalties for breaking the law lol

That's kind of it. I own 2 handguns and love them to bits. I own a Cz 75 and a 9mm Springfield. But they were hard for me to obtain, and that's how I like it

 

[Jiigzz]

I get it. You can’t be expected to be aware of all the proposed legislation and views of politicians here in the US (not that I know it all, because I don’t haha) any more than I can be expected to know all the goings-on in every other country. I think concealed handgun carry is sufficient. Then of course law-abiding citizens can have shotguns or pistol-caliber carbines (much easier to properly aim with than a handgun for home defense, and without the same risk of over-penetration that rifles often have in urban areas), and rifles do have their place for someone living out in the country or with a large amount of land. I think that an AR-15 or an AK is a poor choice for most home-defense and daily-carry, but that doesn’t mean they should be illegal to own (semi-automatic of course), although I’m not saying you are saying they should be. It’s a similar misconception with hollow points. People think of them as some evil bullets, but they actually help minimize unintended over penetration and collateral damage. A FMJ bullet is more likely to go through the target, or whatever it hits if a shot misses, which can cause unintended damage and injury. Many times, a hollowpoint is both more effective in neutralizing a threat (less energy/force “wasted” by not traveling completely through it and a larger impact), and minimizing over penetration. This is particularly beneficial for urban areas, like home defense in a residential area, as you don’t want shots going through walls into other rooms/buildings/etc.

My views exactly. A handgun for day to day safety, and whatever you desire for home safety (well, you know what I mean lol)

 

[muscleupcrohn]

This is just me, and feel free to criticize:

-Stricter licencing and harsher penalties for carry without a permit. having various licences depending on the type of firearm and ammunition (i.e. recreational hunting shotgun or rifle vs an AR-15). More important for guns that require magazines.
The magazine is an important distinction. An AR-15 is functionally no different than a “not scary” semi-auto rifle used for hunting that nobody demonizes. You do have some semi-auto rifles like the SKS that have a fixed mag (10 rounds normally) though.

-A move away from selling guns in places like walmart, and strictly to gun shops and ammo stores. This may sound silly, but moving alcohol out of supermarkets in West Auckland has dramatically cut down issues around alcohol in my part of the world (westies were notorious for problem drinking). We can still access alcohol, but with less exposure we are having fewer issues
I personally don’t care about this enough to really be against it adamantly, but I can’t help but wonder the effect this will have on prices. What about a sporting-goods store like Dicks that sells a variety of other hunting equipment?

-Conceal carry only, and only handguns for personal protection.
Fine with that.

-No further restrictions on the type of guns you can own (same as current)
Agreed.

-Harsher penalties for breaking the law lol
Agreed.

That's kind of it. I own 2 handguns and love them to bits. I own a Cz 75 and a 9mm Springfield. But they were hard for me to obtain, and that's how I like it

Response bolded in post above.

 

[Jiigzz]

Response bolded in post above.

Very true. Good post.

I do like ARs and can get several types here and am keen to get one at some stage.

I think I draw the line at like 20-30 round magazines unless you have a specific licence for it. At those magazine capacities you could run into problems around mass shootings etc IMO

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Very true. Good post.

I do like ARs and can get several types here and am keen to get one at some stage.

I think I draw the line at like 20-30 round magazines unless you have a specific licence for it. At those magazine capacities you could run into problems around mass shootings etc IMO

Thanks. Honestly, 30 rounds is plenty IMO. Anything bigger than that is often excessively heavy and bulky, and sometimes not as reliable. Twenty is probably sufficient, but 30 is the standard size for so many 223 and 7.62 rounds that retroactively banning them would make millions of people criminals if they didn’t turn them in, and then they’d have to buy all new magazines.

 

[DemntedCowboy]

Very true. Good post.

I do like ARs and can get several types here and am keen to get one at some stage.

I think I draw the line at like 20-30 round magazines unless you have a specific licence for it. At those magazine capacities you could run into problems around mass shootings etc IMO

Know what blows my mind. The day after I get home from my first tour. My first wife took me to Walmart and bought me a .22 LR w/500 rounds. And my ex-father-in-law bought me a M4 carbine w/500 rounds. I was like I just carried a rifle for 18 months and the first thing you get me when I get home is 2 rifles.

 

[Jiigzz]

Thanks. Honestly, 30 rounds is plenty IMO. Anything bigger than that is often excessively heavy and bulky, and sometimes not as reliable. Twenty is probably sufficient, but 30 is the standard size for so many 223 and 7.62 rounds that retroactively banning them would make millions of people criminals if they didn’t turn them in, and then they’d have to buy all new magazines.

You wouldn't ban them though, you'd phase them out and just sell lower capacity mags

 

[muscleupcrohn]

You wouldn't ban them though, you'd phase them out and just sell lower capacity mags

So the ones currently out there would be “grandfathered in?”