Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

ax1 said:
It would just increase the blackmarket for international guns. Id bet China would love to send guns to Mexico to get over here.
Click to expand...

If this were true, criminals overseas would be as well armed as those in the US but countries with stricter gun laws, that have their own gangs, have fewer gun deaths. Why aren't gang members overseas importing Chinese weapons and matching our per capita gun deaths?
 
nostrum420 said:
If this were true, criminals overseas would be as well armed as those in the US but countries with stricter gun laws, that have their own gangs, have fewer gun deaths. Why aren't gang members overseas importing Chinese weapons and matching our per capita gun deaths?
Click to expand...

I didn’t mean necessarily criminals and gangs, or in China’s case the Triads, but the CCP. CCP is well armed, aretheynot?

They already sell and ship off mass quantities of supplies to South America to help the drug trade including chemicals to make meth along with opioids and fentanyl.

The CCP wages covert wars in the USA with soft power, drugs, media infiltration, and other culturally disintegrating methods. I’d be shocked if they didn’t meddle with BLM and Antifa to an extent.
 
nostrum420 said:
But there are few, if any illegal clandestine gun manufacturers. So, if we did a better job with universal background checks and gun registrations, we could greatly cut down on gang members access to guns. The problem is, this would mean holding people responsible for repeatedly "losing their guns."

#responsiblegunowners
Click to expand...
lol...U.S citizens account for 395 million guns, that is 120 guns for every 100 citizens.

i am curious how many of those guns are already in the hands of gang members/criminals-care to guess?
 
nostrum420 said:
If this were true, criminals overseas would be as well armed as those in the US but countries with stricter gun laws, that have their own gangs, have fewer gun deaths. Why aren't gang members overseas importing Chinese weapons and matching our per capita gun deaths?
Click to expand...
well for one thing guns like cars have distinct marking that could be traced back to country of origin. and since the government is in charge in china, weapons could be traced directly back to chinese government...
 
ax1 said:
Alot of those "mass shootings" come from gang bangers and are caused do to the war on drugs which should be eliminated. The US Government often provides the gangs that are somewhat under their control arms and drugs.

Somebody in the USA dies every 50 minutes from DWI crashes, thats over 10,000 deaths every year from something that could have been prevented if we banned alcohol or cars, amiright?
Click to expand...
These types of deflecting arguments are annoying lol. The goal posts continuous move in order to avoid actually addressing the question.

The point you are making is that if you cannot prevent all deaths, you shouldnt even try. Whether or not you realise you are making that argument; you are.
 
Jiigzz said:
These types of deflecting arguments are annoying lol. The goal posts continuous move in order to avoid actually addressing the question.

The point you are making is that if you cannot prevent all deaths, you shouldnt even try. Whether or not you realise you are making that argument; you are.
Click to expand...
just so you are aware, there are already 395 MILLION guns in the hands of civilians in this country.

there are less than 5 million people in new zealand.
 
Jiigzz said:
These types of deflecting arguments are annoying lol. The goal posts continuous move in order to avoid actually addressing the question.

The point you are making is that if you cannot prevent all deaths, you shouldnt even try. Whether or not you realise you are making that argument; you are.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right,

Look, whenever gun laws are enacted the end result are that criminals gain power and good people are weaker. We dont want to live in a world of fear from being defenseless.

What happened in NZ is great, it worked. But look (well you cant look because you dont go there) at the most gun controlled place on earth, China. Im not even talking about government tyranny here, Im talking how thugs, gangs and criminals run the streets especially in the rural areas. The people are weak to defend themselves. The place I stay at, all the windows are caged up as is just about every apartment building several floors up, if there is a fire there is no way out when Im inside. Child kidnappings and human trafficking is real, Ive seen 8 year old child beggars walk up to me for money on the train and you can tell they are drugged up and not with their real parent. Petty crime is crazy. People dont talk when crime happens out of fear street gangs will chase after them later on. Ive seen fights in bars before, nobody does anything not even the people that work at the bar...one guy I saw was beaten to a bloody pulp, cops showed up 20 minutes later everybody was gone. People are scared to stand up for themselves, gangs rule society...well parts of it. Upper class is ruled by the CCP.

Then let me get into terrorism and chinese flipping out grabbing meat cleavers and chopping up school children or going into a subway station and slashing some 100+ people.

Check this out, 33 dead 130 people cut, no guns involved....
Invalid Link Removed

Just because you have complete gun control does not mean you live in a safer society.

And Ill remind you, we supposedly have all these terrorists that want to come over here and kill as many of us as possible to revenge what US government policy has done to them.

So I mean like yeah, in a perfect world gun reform sounds morally just, but its not necessarily smart or makes things better nor does it work in every country because I tell you, having laws of NZ here is a terrible idea. Gangs in NYC and some upstate cities are hardcore bad. And I hate guns.
 
ax1 said:
Yes you are right,

Look, whenever gun laws are enacted the end result are that criminals gain power and good people are weaker. We dont want to live in a world of fear from being defenseless.

What happened in NZ is great, it worked. But look (well you cant look because you dont go there) at the most gun controlled place on earth, China. Im not even talking about government tyranny here, Im talking how thugs, gangs and criminals run the streets especially in the rural areas. The people are weak to defend themselves. The place I stay at, all the windows are caged up as is just about every apartment building several floors up, if there is a fire there is no way out when Im inside. Child kidnappings and human trafficking is real, Ive seen 8 year old child beggars walk up to me for money on the train and you can tell they are drugged up and not with their real parent. Petty crime is crazy. People dont talk when crime happens out of fear street gangs will chase after them later on. Ive seen fights in bars before, nobody does anything not even the people that work at the bar...one guy I saw was beaten to a bloody pulp, cops showed up 20 minutes later everybody was gone. People are scared to stand up for themselves, gangs rule society...well parts of it. Upper class is ruled by the CCP.

Then let me get into terrorism and chinese flipping out grabbing meat cleavers and chopping up school children or going into a subway station and slashing some 100+ people.

Check this out, 33 dead 130 people cut, no guns involved....
Invalid Link Removed

Just because you have complete gun control does not mean you live in a safer society.

And Ill remind you, we supposedly have all these terrorists that want to come over here and kill as many of us as possible to revenge what US government policy has done to them.

So I mean like yeah, in a perfect world gun reform sounds morally just, but its not necessarily smart or makes things better nor does it work in every country because I tell you, having laws of NZ here is a terrible idea. Gangs in NYC and some upstate cities are hardcore bad. And I hate guns.
Click to expand...
NZ isnt the only country with 'strict' gun laws. It's pretty much every western country minus the US that does. It works pretty well everywhere else, but again the same arguments keep coming up, so it's not really worth continuing.

At the end of the day it's a right to bear arms. So that must be respected. That's pretty much the only argument that I concede to because I think all the other justifications are wild fantasies (I.e. the Mexicans will eat you).
 
thebigt said:
lol...U.S citizens account for 395 million guns, that is 120 guns for every 100 citizens.

i am curious how many of those guns are already in the hands of gang members/criminals-care to guess?
Click to expand...

So, you're just going to pivot to a new question every time I make a point?

Are you against background checks and registrations?
 
Jiigzz said:
These types of deflecting arguments are annoying lol. The goal posts continuous move in order to avoid actually addressing the question.

The point you are making is that if you cannot prevent all deaths, you shouldnt even try. Whether or not you realise you are making that argument; you are.
Click to expand...

THIS ^^^^^^^^
 
thebigt said:
gang members very rarely if ever used legal guns to commit crimes-and they are responsible for 15,000 killings each year.
Click to expand...

Jiiggz point went over your head. He even said he wasn’t saying legal gun owners are more dangerous or that gangs do not commit crimes. He said the narrative that gun crimes aren’t committed by legal gun owners is false. And he presented evidence that said proved its false. Regardless of how many gang killings there are a year with illegal guns, legal gun owners also commit gun crimes.

Also - to Ax’s point - if the government is supplying guns to gang members, OF COURSE THEY AREN’T REGISTERED!!!!
 
Jiigzz said:
NZ isnt the only country with 'strict' gun laws. It's pretty much every western country minus the US that does. It works pretty well everywhere else, but again the same arguments keep coming up, so it's not really worth continuing.

At the end of the day it's a right to bear arms. So that must be respected. That's pretty much the only argument that I concede to because I think all the other justifications are wild fantasies (I.e. the Mexicans will eat you).
Click to expand...

So lets have one country that doesnt go with the norm of the rest of the world, lol

Yeah, wild fantasies, until people really need them and then its too late. Ask the victims of Nanjing or East Timor or the Koreans during the Rodney King LA Riots
 
dixonk said:
Yes. All gun laws are infringements.
Click to expand...

And then it turns from background checks and they sneak in the legislation "if you tell your doctor you have been sad when you get out of bed, you must be reported to Homeland Security and have your rights revoked without judge and jury." Or they will sneak in the gun bill "if the NSA illegally taps you and finds you saying "sad and gun" in the same sentence say buh buy to 2nd.
 
Guns should be treated as the inanimate object that they are. You don’t need a BC for a knife or hammer. Yet statistically speaking you are more likely to be killed by a knife, hammer, or foot than a gun.


Invalid Link Removed
 
dixonk said:
Guns should be treated as the inanimate object that they are. You don’t need a BC for a knife or hammer. Yet statistically speaking you are more likely to be killed by a knife, hammer, or foot than a gun.


Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Statistically it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to die from a gunshot here in the United States.
 
ax1 said:
And then it turns from background checks and they sneak in the legislation "if you tell your doctor you have been sad when you get out of bed, you must be reported to Homeland Security and have your rights revoked without judge and jury." Or they will sneak in the gun bill "if the NSA illegally taps you and finds you saying "sad and gun" in the same sentence say buh buy to 2nd.
Click to expand...

Yes and all deregulation is just a slippery slope to total anarchy, right?
 
nostrum420 said:
Yes and all deregulation is just a slippery slope to total anarchy, right?
Click to expand...

You dont need to deregulate anything, just restore the US Constitution and hold those that violated it accountable, because after all the duty of our politicians which they take oath to protect is primarily just that.
 
Jiigzz said:
NZ isnt the only country with 'strict' gun laws. It's pretty much every western country minus the US that does. It works pretty well everywhere else, but again the same arguments keep coming up, so it's not really worth continuing.

At the end of the day it's a right to bear arms. So that must be respected. That's pretty much the only argument that I concede to because I think all the other justifications are wild fantasies (I.e. the Mexicans will eat you).
Click to expand...

Why are you not including Switzerland in your wild western fantasies?

Jo Jorgensen 2020, "Make America a Giant Switzerland!!"
 
ax1 said:
You dont need to deregulate anything, just restore the US Constitution and hold those that violated it accountable, because after all the duty of our politicians which they take oath to protect is primarily just that.
Click to expand...

So you want remove the regulations that are above and beyond those laid out in the constitution...
 
nostrum420 said:
So you want remove the regulations that are above and beyond those laid out in the constitution...
Click to expand...

Start over, its a big mess....well, realistically phase them all out, any regulation requiring more than 1 page should be the first new regulation.
 
ax1 said:
Start over, its a big mess....well, realistically phase them all out, any regulation requiring more than 1 page should be the first new regulation.
Click to expand...

So, when you said "you don't need to deregulate anything," that was inaccurate.

Anyway, what's to stop the next person from saying that even the constitution is too restrictive? It's another slippery slope.
 
nostrum420 said:
So, when you said "you don't need to deregulated anything," that was inaccurate.

Anyway, what's to stop the next person from saying that even the constitution is too restrictive? It's another slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Yes its inaccurate, I expressed my self wrongly.

Whats restrictive about the US Constutition on your mind? I dunno Im biased. I love individual freedom and liberty and the laws that protect our natural rights... power of the individual so Im slightly biased there.
 
Jiigzz said:
NZ isnt the only country with 'strict' gun laws. It's pretty much every western country minus the US that does. It works pretty well everywhere else, but again the same arguments keep coming up, so it's not really worth continuing.
Click to expand...

What are you going to do if China decides to go to war with Australia over issues of the South China sea, Australia makes a provocative move and China decides to set up shop by invading NZ as a launching point to strike Australia.....then PLA soldiers are encouraged to makes mixed babies with NZder ladies just like they have been in Eastern Turkestan?

Would you rather a heavily armed society have the ability to fight back? Or sticks, Legos and spoons the preferred method to thwart and fight back the PLA these days?
 
ax1 said:
Yes its inaccurate, I expressed my self wrongly.

Whats restrictive about the US Constutition on your mind? I dunno Im biased. I love individual freedom and liberty and the laws that protect our natural rights... power of the individual so Im slightly biased there.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I think it is. I'm saying the argument is always that regulation is a slippery slope to overregulation as per your example where background checks become invasive, HIPAA violating, draconian overreaches. Why is the opposite not considered, wherein deregulation is a slippery slope to no regulation?
 
The governments job is to protect our constitutional right and provide safety for American citizens. That’s it. No add ons.
 
nostrum420 said:
I'm not saying I think it is. I'm saying the argument is always that regulation is a slippery slope to overregulation as per your example where background checks become invasive, HIPAA violating, draconian overreaches. Why is the opposite not considered, wherein deregulation is a slippery slope to no regulation?
Click to expand...

Not sure if I understand the question perfectly, but I have my own ideas on how much and who regulates. And that should be left to the State's and the free markets. If the States overregulate and the people arent happy they can either move or try to get the Federal Government step in as their role should only being refereeing the States.
 
If I had my way about it anything above and beyond constitutional rights and security without infringing would be handled by the states. A federal election should be the least important election to people. They have given themselves far too much power.
 
dixonk said:
If I had my way about it anything above and beyond constitutional rights and security without infringing would be handled by the states. A federal election should be the least important election to people. They have given themselves far too much power.
Click to expand...

Thats why this country is not only so divided but not getting along. When you have Federal Laws you are limited where you can run when these coast to coast one blanket fits all policies effects everybody.
 
ax1 said:
Thats why this country is not only so divided but not getting along. When you have Federal Laws you are limited where you can run when these coast to coast one blanket fits all policies effects everybody.
Click to expand...

If California wants to ban straws to save sea turtles then they should be allowed to as banning straws doesn’t infringe on citizens rights and people that want straws could move if they wanted to. If California wants to ban guns however, that is when the federal govt is supposed to step in to protect said citizens right.

I am trying to put my finger on a point in time that made Americans afraid of freedom, liberty, and self reliance. Why do so many look to an elected politician to determine what they should or shouldn’t do?
 
Jiigzz said:
In 2019 there were over 400 mass shootings in the US?

How many mass vehicle murders? How many mass knife stabbings?

Your logic is completely broken. In countries where gun use isnt as rampant as the US, they aren't experiencing huge numbers of people driving cars into crowds. Your examples are devoid of any grounding in reality and rely on the "what if" scenario.

If you're going to present the argument, back it up with EVIDENCE. Do stabbings happen? Yes. Do people get run over? Yes.

Do more people die from intentional shootings in the US over any of those other forms? Also yes.

If you are happy for any person to own a gun, then all the more power to you. In NZ though, us banning semi autos hasn't resulted in more people run over in cars. It hasn't resulted in more deaths by stabbings.

But you're right, maybe if the Las Vegas shooter just threw knifes out his window it would have killed more people. Because they're equivalent and all
Click to expand...

Google vehicle ramming attack and go to Wikipedia and look at the list of terrorist and non terrorist use of a vehicle for mass killings. There’s too many for me to post.

My whole issue with your post is you made it out that a .22 is worse than a semi auto. That’s an asinine comparison. A semi auto has nothing to do with the effectiveness of caliber size. So, it’s evident you’re not a gun guy. What I mean by that is you may have a gun but you’re not well educated in firearms.

I do agree with you firearms are used more frequently than any other weapon, but that doesn’t mean a mentally ill person can’t use a vehicle or knife. Vehicles have been used around the world since the 50’s for killings. I didn’t even google knives because I know there’s many a lot in the past few years in Europe.

When someone makes an argument that is negative about firearms and uses a comparison that is not valid, I shutdown because they don’t know that they’re talking about.

Just for shitz and giggles I searched knife attacks. There’s a boat load of them worldwide listed on Wikipedia. The first one I clicked on was the Anne Anne Kindergarten stabbing in Hong Kong in 1982. A man killed his mother and sister, then went to the school and stabbed 34 kindergarteners. That’s just a sick individual that needs a bullet to the head.
 
Last edited:
dixonk said:
I am trying to put my finger on a point in time that made Americans afraid of freedom, liberty, and self reliance. Why do so many look to an elected politician to determine what they should or shouldn’t do?
Click to expand...

Primarily because of the Department of Education, it was designed to change culture and the thought of rugged individualism increasing dependency and worshiping the state.
 
ax1 said:
Primarily because of the Department of Education, it was designed to change culture and the thought of rugged individualism increasing dependency and worshiping the state.
Click to expand...

I did notice there is no longer hunting courses, gun safety, shop class, wood class, welding class, or camping trips. My sons reading assignments aren’t classics or focus on American exceptionalism. It’s social justice books most of the time now. He didn’t grow up reading books like the Hardy Boys and playing in the woods with the neighbors.
 
dixonk said:
I did notice there is no longer hunting courses, gun safety, shop class, wood class, welding class, or camping trips. My sons reading assignments aren’t classics or focus on American exceptionalism. It’s social justice books most of the time now. He didn’t grow up reading books like the Hardy Boys and playing in the woods with the neighbors.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the whistleblower Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt who was senior policy advisor for the DoE under the Reagan administration?

Invalid Link Removed
 
sammpedd88 said:
Google vehicle ramming attack and go to Wikipedia and look at the list of terrorist and non terrorist use of a vehicle for mass killings. There’s too many for me to post.

My whole issue with your post is you made it out that a .22 is worse than a semi auto. That’s an asinine comparison. A semi auto has nothing to do with the effectiveness of caliber size. So, it’s evident you’re not a gun guy. What I mean by that is you may have a gun but you’re not well educated in firearms.

I do agree with you firearms are used more frequently than any other weapon, but that doesn’t mean a mentally ill person can’t use a vehicle or knife. Vehicles have been used around the world since the 50’s for killings. I didn’t even google knives because I know there’s many a lot in the past few years in Europe.

When someone makes an argument that is negative about firearms and uses a comparison that is not valid, I shutdown because they don’t know that they’re talking about.
Click to expand...

Not really trying to get involved here, just offer some clarification.

Im pretty sure he already said he left out the words “bolt action” in the sentence. He was trying to compare a semi auto .22 to a bolt action .22.
 
Last edited:
sammpedd88 said:
When someone makes an argument that is negative about firearms and uses a comparison that is not valid, I shutdown because they don’t know that they’re talking about.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be an ass - but this is a really immature character flaw. It’s great that you recognize it and acknowledge it. But, shutting down because someone makes an argument against firearms is never, ever going to be productive. You say Democrats want to sensor any opinion that doesn’t agree with their agenda. How is your behavior on this topic any different?
 
jswain34 said:
Not really trying to get involved here, just offer some clarification.

Im pretty sure he already said he left out the words “bolt action” in the sentence. IE he was trying to compare a semi auto .22 to a bolt action .22.
Click to expand...

It still isn’t a valid comparison. A bolt action rifle has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the caliber.
 
Laura is getting close. Glad it’s moving East though. If it turns west, it’s gonna be much rougher than it’s already looking.
 
Invalid Link Removed
 
Woody said:
Laura is getting close. Glad it’s moving East though. If it turns west, it’s gonna be much rougher than it’s already looking.
Click to expand...

Oh krap, I just found out its a Cat 4, last I heard it was a 1 and barely going to be a 2 before it hits landfall.

I would say its turn would be worse if it wasnt a situation it would float out to sea, more time over warm waters = bad news.
 
nostrum420 said:
So, you're just going to pivot to a new question every time I make a point?

Are you against background checks and registrations?
Click to expand...



i am all for background checks and registrations, but if police get defunded who is going to do enforcement-social workers?

you can't be for laws and be against the police you would count on to enforce them!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top