Donald Trump running for president

ax1 said:
Swastika has been over 2000 years. Originated in Buddhism.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so would it be wrong to put it on a flag after Hitler used it? This is the whole idea behind the confederate flag(per person)and how its apart of their heritage.
 
CJNator said:
Exactly, so would it be wrong to put it on a flag after Hitler used it? This is the whole idea behind the confederate flag(per person)and how its apart of their heritage.
Click to expand...

Buddhism certainly still used it, althoug the Nazi's did spin in a few degrees.

If the confederate flag has to go, the USA flag has to go.

It was under the stars and stripes that the US government sent blacks to Vietnam to die after a fabricated incident, it was the US government who gave blacks syphillis under the tuskegee incident incident, it was under the US flag blacks are currently being robbed of their gun rights, have their hard earned labor stolen away from them, are used for political gain, etc......

Anyways I for certain dont ban any flag including the Nazi's. Ill tell you, if I saw a restaurant that was flying the Nazi flag I dont think Id be visiting there, but its their right to have that. Once you take others rights away to be politically correct we all lose our rights.
 
ax1 said:
Buddhism certainly still used it, althoug the Nazi's did spin in a few degrees.

If the confederate flag has to go, the USA flag has to go.

It was under the stars and stripes that the US government sent blacks to Vietnam to die after a fabricated incident, it was the US government who gave blacks syphillis under the tuskegee incident incident, it was under the US flag blacks are currently being robbed of their gun rights, have their hard earned labor stolen away from them, are used for political gain, etc......

Anyways I for certain dont ban any flag including the Nazi's. Ill tell you, if I saw a restaurant that was flying the Nazi flag I dont think Id be visiting there, but its their right to have that. Once you take others rights away to be politically correct we all lose our rights.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% we see eye to eye on bunch of stuff lol I don't recall but what ideology do you follow?
 
Gutterpump said:
So you're saying if I was born into the Nazi party, I shouldn't denounce them, and take my place under Himmler? There'd be no way to show them better... it would've meant execution if going against their ideals or speaking out against their actions while at their side.
Click to expand...

there is a huge difference between heritage and actions...what I am saying is that the actions of a few should not dictate how an entire race of people should be thought of. that would be racist!!!
 
Ok so Rubio made a comment that the new gun restrictions would make it harder for "law abiding citizens to exercise their rights".

Can someone explain how stricter background checks makes it harder for "law abiding" citizens.
 
ax1 said:
Buddhism certainly still used it, althoug the Nazi's did spin in a few degrees.

If the confederate flag has to go, the USA flag has to go.

It was under the stars and stripes that the US government sent blacks to Vietnam to die after a fabricated incident, it was the US government who gave blacks syphillis under the tuskegee incident incident, it was under the US flag blacks are currently being robbed of their gun rights, have their hard earned labor stolen away from them, are used for political gain, etc......

Anyways I for certain dont ban any flag including the Nazi's. Ill tell you, if I saw a restaurant that was flying the Nazi flag I dont think Id be visiting there, but its their right to have that. Once you take others rights away to be politically correct we all lose our rights.
Click to expand...

Then there is also the American Eagle and the Nazi Eagle. Symbology is a powerful thing. I don't see America ever giving up the eagle though.
 
Dma378 said:
Ok so Rubio made a comment that the new gun restrictions would make it harder for "law abiding citizens to exercise their rights".

Can someone explain how stricter background checks makes it harder for "law abiding" citizens.
Click to expand...

tried to like your post but
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dma378 again."
 
Gutterpump said:
Then there is also the American Eagle and the Nazi Eagle. Symbology is a powerful thing. I don't see America ever giving up the eagle though.
Click to expand...

I am happy with the eagle...ben franklin wanted the turkey to be the national bird....
 
CJNator said:
Self ownership huh? Individualist or Voluntaryist?
Click to expand...

To label any ideology it just becomes forms of dogmatic conditioned existence. I prefer to stay away from labeling myself from anything, just let people do that for me since I cannot stop that, lol.

Not clinging to a "ideology" doesnt mean Im self absorbed in only my own thoughts just to clarify, Ive let the world around me change me and thats very certain in the recent past.
 
Gutterpump said:
Then there is also the American Eagle and the Nazi Eagle. Symbology is a powerful thing. I don't see America ever giving up the eagle though.
Click to expand...

The Nazi's were obsessed with historical cultures and things just to keep this post short.
 
Dma378 said:
Ok so Rubio made a comment that the new gun restrictions would make it harder for "law abiding citizens to exercise their rights".

Can someone explain how stricter background checks makes it harder for "law abiding" citizens.
Click to expand...

Quoting self to bump post.
 
Dma378 said:
Ok so Rubio made a comment that the new gun restrictions would make it harder for "law abiding citizens to exercise their rights".

Can someone explain how stricter background checks makes it harder for "law abiding" citizens.
Click to expand...
Generally regulations restrict freedom for "our safety" I'm not aware of the specifics of these new regulations.

ax1 said:
To label any ideology it just becomes forms of dogmatic conditioned existence. I prefer to stay away from labeling myself from anything, just let people do that for me since I cannot stop that, lol.

Not clinging to a "ideology" doesnt mean Im self absorbed in only my own thoughts just to clarify, Ive let the world around me change me and thats very certain in the recent past.
Click to expand...
Oh ok I understand *cough*individualist*cough* ;)
 
CJNator said:
Generally regulations restrict freedom for "our safety" I'm not aware of the specifics of these new regulations.


Oh ok I understand *cough*individualist*cough* ;)
Click to expand...

I get that. I just don't get the argument that this somehow hurts "law abiding" citizens. It is thrown around over and over, I have just never heard an explanation on how or why.
 
Dma378 said:
I get that. I just don't get the argument that this somehow hurts "law abiding" citizens. It is thrown around over and over, I have just never heard an explanation on how or why.
Click to expand...

I guess since criminals/outlaws/algorists(whatever you want to call them)are willing to break the law to get around regulations generally but law abiding citizens choose not to due to seeing a direct correlation legality and morality I assume.
 
Dma378 said:
Ok so Rubio made a comment that the new gun restrictions would make it harder for "law abiding citizens to exercise their rights".

Can someone explain how stricter background checks makes it harder for "law abiding" citizens.
Click to expand...

Its already difficult for many of us to get guns. You have to define what a background check really is. I heard they want to ban a number of SS recipients from getting guns for example.

Also, there is other controversial measures being talked about such as adding in GPS tracking devices to guns and so forth.

Personally, I feel government has no business knowing who has what, and a background check becomes a registry. When government declares a state of emergency they may go door to door and take everyone's guns which therefore makes it impossible for people to excersise their rights. It happened not long ago during Katrina.

Another problem, big beef I have with background checks is that many people will be stripped of their rights without due process. Its kind of the "no fly list" people get slapped on there just for be a "suspect." Your being stripped of your rights without ever being charged with a crime.

To sum it up, background checks supress "law abiding" citizens from their rights, especially in a system of "laws" that shouldnt be there in the first place such as drug crimes for example. Also I dont believe citizens who break the law should automatically be disqualified from owning a gun.

In the end its silly, criminals dont need to go through the process to get guns and usually avoid it in most cases anyways.
 
ax1 said:
Its already difficult for many of us to get guns. You have to define what a background check really is. I heard they want to ban a number of SS recipients from getting guns for example.

Also, there is other controversial measures being talked about such as adding in GPS tracking devices to guns and so forth.

Personally, I feel government has no business knowing who has what, and a background check becomes a registry. When government declares a state of emergency they may go door to door and take everyone's guns which therefore makes it impossible for people to excersise their rights. It happened not long ago during Katrina.

Another problem, big beef I have with background checks is that many people will be stripped of their rights without due process. Its kind of the "no fly list" people get slapped on there just for be a "suspect." Your being stripped of your rights without ever being charged with a crime.

To sum it up, background checks supress "law abiding" citizens from their rights, especially in a system of "laws" that shouldnt be there in the first place such as drug crimes for example. Also I dont believe citizens who break the law should automatically be disqualified from owning a gun.

In the end its silly, criminals dont need to go through the process to get guns and usually avoid it in most cases anyways.
Click to expand...

Ok, some of this I can agree with. But not every criminal or idiot knows how to get a gun outside of a store or show.

I do just think that in the end, if you are sane and clean, you'll get your gun. No worries.

But yeah, I'm pretty normal (now), I'd like to have a gun legally. I have considered buying one illegally to protect my home and family, but the penalty for prohibited possession is just to harsh.
 
from what I understand Obama's immediate intention is to shut down gun shows.....I think the nra and gun enthusiasts understand that his long term ambition is to prevent gun sales altogether, and they will oppose ANY restriction of gun sales.
 
Dma378 said:
Ok, some of this I can agree with. But not every criminal or idiot knows how to get a gun outside of a store or show.

I do just think that in the end, if you are sane and clean, you'll get your gun. No worries.

But yeah, I'm pretty normal (now), I'd like to have a gun legally. I have considered buying one illegally to protect my home and family, but the penalty for prohibited possession is just to harsh.
Click to expand...

You know, I can compromise alot of things what I say. For example with background checks I would do this.

Have specific definitions of who cannot have guns. Only people who went through due process may be put on it and charged with a crime in front of a judge and jury. All non-violent offenders may not be put on the list. Then get into specifics of the violent ones and categorize them and have a system of forgiveness for some.

Encrypted independent (no access by government) background checks (like a file on a USB stick or something, something not duplicateable) only distributed to dealers and have a universal one for guns shows in a way which is a simple yes or no to protect the privacy of the buyer as well. No backdoor loopholes, and the government is not allowed to ever seize the stick and include a self destruct switch on them.

Any buyer denied who questions why is on a list has a right to speedy due process to correct the mistake if that is the case.

I can go on, but I can innovate how we can get this done and compromise because I do know not everybody will be on the same page as me.
 
thebigt said:
from what I understand Obama's immediate intention is to shut down gun shows.....I think the nra and gun enthusiasts understand that his long term ambition is to prevent gun sales altogether, and they will oppose ANY restriction of gun sales.
Click to expand...

Some polititions in NY wanted to push to limit ammo sales in a 3 month period to only double the capacity of your gun. So 7 capacity gun = 14 bullets in 3 months. No way to practice your shot much now is it. Fortunately it was stopped, but alot of these shmucks really are hardcore.
 
ax1 said:
Some polititions in NY wanted to push to limit ammo sales in a 3 month period to only double the capacity of your gun. So 7 capacity gun = 14 bullets in 3 months. No way to practice your shot much now is it. Fortunately it was stopped, but alot of these shmucks really are hardcore.
Click to expand...

exactly why the nra and many gun owners are just as hardcore about ANY legislation aimed[pun intended]at limiting gun ownership.
 
ax1 said:
You know, I can compromise alot of things what I say. For example with background checks I would do this.

Have specific definitions of who cannot have guns. Only people who went through due process may be put on it and charged with a crime in front of a judge and jury. All non-violent offenders may not be put on the list. Then get into specifics of the violent ones and categorize them and have a system of forgiveness for some.

Encrypted independent (no access by government) background checks (like a file on a USB stick or something, something not duplicateable) only distributed to dealers and have a universal one for guns shows in a way which is a simple yes or no to protect the privacy of the buyer as well. No backdoor loopholes, and the government is not allowed to ever seize the stick and include a self destruct switch on them.

Any buyer denied who questions why is on a list has a right to speedy due process to correct the mistake if that is the case.

I can go on, but I can innovate how we can get this done and compromise because I do know not everybody will be on the same page as me.
Click to expand...

Good post
 
Dma378 said:
I get that. I just don't get the argument that this somehow hurts "law abiding" citizens. It is thrown around over and over, I have just never heard an explanation on how or why.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed

One of the problems is dealing with who decides if your are "mentally incompetent" or not. And what is their definition of mentally incompetent. Go back to obamacare, and the doctors that started asking patients if you owned guns. Now a doctor can report you as unstable to the FBI with no recourse. Brandon Raub was kidnapped after some Facebook posts and held for says with ZERO CHARGES ever filed. As another part of this, if a veteran or physically disabled person has a fiduciary to handle their finances because it's just a pain in the ass due to physical injuries, say a couple missing legs, the VA declares them mentally incompetent. Which now gets imported over to the NCIS and a citizen can now be denied their right to purchase a firearm. In Cali, the new law says anyone can report a family member that you "think" is unstable and has guns, and the police are required to come confiscate your guns. Remember the due process of facing your accusers? Gone.

That's just a single part of the problem with his whole charade.
 
youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

One of the problems is dealing with who decides if your are "mentally incompetent" or not. And what is their definition of mentally incompetent. Go back to obamacare, and the doctors that started asking patients if you owned guns. Now a doctor can report you as unstable to the FBI with no recourse. Brandon Raub was kidnapped after some Facebook posts and held for says with ZERO CHARGES ever filed. As another part of this, if a veteran or physically disabled person has a fiduciary to handle their finances because it's just a pain in the ass due to physical injuries, say a couple missing legs, the VA declares them mentally incompetent. Which now gets imported over to the NCIS and a citizen can now be denied their right to purchase a firearm. In Cali, the new law says anyone can report a family member that you "think" is unstable and has guns, and the police are required to come confiscate your guns. Remember the due process of facing your accusers? Gone.

That's just a single part of the problem with his whole charade.
Click to expand...

Ok. This also makes some sense to me.

So, as the gun enthusiast, and opinionated individual, what do you propose? What is your take on the issue. Obviously keeping the right of citizens intact. But how to you make a positive impact on the deaths, accidents, and heinous crimes?

No, nothing will completely wipe it out. But what is the middle ground? What is the compromise?
 
Dma378 said:
Ok, some of this I can agree with. But not every criminal or idiot knows how to get a gun outside of a store or show.

I do just think that in the end, if you are sane and clean, you'll get your gun. No worries.

But yeah, I'm pretty normal (now), I'd like to have a gun legally. I have considered buying one illegally to protect my home and family, but the penalty for prohibited possession is just to harsh.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
 
Dma378 said:
Ok. This also makes some sense to me.

Do, as the gun enthusiast, and opinionated individual, what do you propose? What is your take on the issue. Obviously keeping the right of citizens intact. But how to you make a positive impact on the deaths, accidents, and heinous crimes?

No, nothing will completely wipe it out. But what is the middle ground? What is the compromise?
Click to expand...

First off do you know how many gun deaths there are each year,and how many of those are homicides? There is less than 40,000 people that die from gunshots every year. Do you know how many people die from doctor screwups? 400,000. More than 1,000 people every day die because a doctor ****ed up. My dad became a statistic on June 6, 2015. He was transported by a medic with possible pneumothorax, or blood clots. Very low blood pressure and trouble breathing. It was over an hour before I got to the ER. In order to administer life saving clot busting medicine you need to have an IV established. Guess what he didn't have before he coded. No IV. For several hours he didn't have one. I watched a girl try to find a vein in his lower arm when he had a blood pressure of 60. It's impossible to find one with blood pressure that low. He should have had a main line immediately put in to his jugular. But they didn't do it.

So my argument is look at the entire picture. Gun deaths aren't the giant epidemic they claim to be. But it's about gaining more control like every other totalitarian government has done in the past.
 
Invalid Link Removed

Less than 9000 people were murdered with a gun last year.
Invalid Link Removed

According to this, 21,000 gun deaths were suicides.
 
youngandfree said:
First off so you know how many gun deaths there are each year,and how many of those are homicides? There is less than 40,000 people that die from gunshots every year. Do you know how many people die from doctor screwups? 400,000. More than 1,000 people every day die because a doctor ****ed up. My dad became a statistic on June 6, 2015. He was transported by a medic with possible pneumothorax, or blood clots. Very low blood pressure and trouble breathing. It was over an hour before I got to the ER. In order to administer life saving clot busting medicine you need to have an IV established. Guess what he didn't have before he coded. No IV. For several hours he didn't have one. I watched a girl try to find a vein in his lower arm when he had a blood pressure of 60. It's impossible to find one with blood pressure that low. He should have had a main line immediately put in to his jugular. But they didn't do it.

So my argument is look at the entire picture. Gun deaths aren't the giant epidemic they claim to be. But it's about gaining more control like every other totalitarian government has done in the past.
Click to expand...

First off, my condolences. That's a shiity story and I can't imagine man.

Agree that there are major issues across the board with our systems and policies and practices.

I just disagree that it is justification to do nothing. I just see it as there's a lot to do on multiple issues man.
 
To purchase a gun from an online dealer, you pay that dealer online, and they transfer it to a dealer local to you. When it arrives, you go in, fill out federal form, and do a background check, and are subject to what your state's laws are regarding waiting periods. So that part of his charade is already federal law.
 
Dma378 said:
First off, my condolences. That's a shiity story and I can't imagine man.

Agree that there are major issues across the board with our systems and policies and practices.

I just disagree that it is justification to do nothing. I just see it as there's a lot to do on multiple issues man.
Click to expand...

FBI says less than 9000 people murdered with guns. It's no where near the problem they claim it to be.
 
What's wrong with expanded background checks for middle eastern visa applicants? The San bernadino jihad Jane had Facebook postings prior to here coming hereally that the State department didn't allow their people to look at during background screenings. "If we can only save one life" would help if they applied it to everything.
 
youngandfree said:
What's wrong with expanded background checks for middle eastern visa applicants? The San bernadino jihad Jane had Facebook postings prior to here coming hereally that the State department didn't allow their people to look at during background screenings. "If we can only save one life" would help if they applied it to everything.
Click to expand...

I think there should be!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top