Guest viewing is limited

Donald Trump running for president

youngandfree said:
You keep ignoring Obama's past of catering to muslim extremists. It's documented fact that you refuse to accept. Ordering open and active investigations of known muslims with ties to known extremists to be stopped and closed. The feds were doing the job you want them to do and Obama shut it down. Who does the director of the FBI answer to? That's right. How about head of CIA?
Click to expand...

You're using the label Muslim when the more accurate in terms of your point(which I'll get to) would be jihadist. Unless you are referring to the peaceful majority Muslims that he defends?

Well, were the Muslims cleared?

Lol so you're telling me that Obama is the reason why there hasn't been any serious common sense gun control laws passed?
 
Matthandyo said:
You're using the label Muslim when the more accurate in terms of your point(which I'll get to) would be jihadist. Unless you are referring to the peaceful majority Muslims that he defends?

Well, were the Muslims cleared?

Lol so you're telling me that Obama is the reason why there hasn't been any serious common sense gun control laws passed?
Click to expand...
How can we discuss "common sense" gun control with people who don't even understand what's already legal and what's not?

You want to make it harder to buy automatic weapons? Done. It's a lengthy process with multiple background checks.

You want to ban (actual) online purchases so people can't have guns delivered to their door? Done. What you described is not buying a gun online.
 
Matthandyo said:
You're using the label Muslim when the more accurate in terms of your point(which I'll get to) would be jihadist. Unless you are referring to the peaceful majority Muslims that he defends?

Well, were the Muslims cleared?

Lol so you're telling me that Obama is the reason why there hasn't been any serious common sense gun control laws passed?
Click to expand...

Well they weren't investigating Jewish jihadis. And no they weren't cleared. They were ordered to shut down the investigations. Not the same thing.
 
Anyone know if Cl1tton has said anything about the shooting yet? Or has she not decided yet whether she's for or against gay rights right now?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
How can we discuss "common sense" gun control with people who don't even understand what's already legal and what's not?

You want to make it harder to buy automatic weapons? Done. It's a lengthy process with multiple background checks.

You want to ban (actual) online purchases so people can't have guns delivered to their door? Done. What you described is not buying a gun online.
Click to expand...

I personally don't see the need for someone to own a fully automatic weapon, those are weapons meant for war. If anyone says they are using a fully automatic weapon or even semiautomatic for hunting they are either lying or a very ****ty shot who should find another hobby besides hunting.


Lol guy goes online looking for gun. Guy finds seller. Guy communicates with seller about cost and agrees on cost and where to meet and pick up. Guy picks up gun and pays dealer at previously decided on spot.

That's buying a gun online.
 
BamBam0319 said:
Gotcha. I was legitimately wondering lol but I despise her so I had to have some fun with it when asking.
Click to expand...

I was surprised honestly that she said anything, the only person I heard say anything on the subject today besides here and the news was Bernie and trump. Bernie calling for a ban on semi and auto weapons. Trump weirdly congratulating himself for thinking he was right about people of the Muslim religion.
 
Matthandyo said:
I personally don't see the need for someone to own a fully automatic weapon, those are weapons meant for war. If anyone says they are using a fully automatic weapon or even semiautomatic for hunting they are either lying or a very ****ty shot who should find another hobby besides hunting.


Lol guy goes online looking for gun. Guy finds seller. Guy communicates with seller about cost and agrees on cost and where to meet and pick up. Guy picks up gun and pays dealer at previously decided on spot.

That's buying a gun online.
Click to expand...
First, the Second Amendment was in no way written to protect hunting; so what is your point? Are you opposed to people owning guns for self defense at all? I assume you support a ban on all pistols for all Americans then, seeing as they're pretty much all semi-automatic.

Are you even aware of the steps required to legally own automatic weapon? We're arguing over nothing here... It's a non-issue. These crimes aren't even being committed with automatic weapons; the media reporting just doesn't bother getting their facts straight, and people don't bother checking either...
 
Matthandyo said:
I was surprised honestly that she said anything, the only person I heard say anything on the subject today besides here and the news was Bernie and trump. Bernie calling for a ban on semi and auto weapons. Trump weirdly congratulating himself for thinking he was right about people of the Muslim religion.
Click to expand...

Obama made a ****ty statement about it too.
That wasn't the gist of Trump's statement btw, but that is the only thing liberals are taking from it. He said a lot more than that. I can link it if you haven't read it.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
First, the Second Amendment was in no way written to protect hunting; so what is your point? Are you opposed to people owning guns for self defense at all? I assume you support a ban on all pistols for all Americans then, seeing as they're pretty much all semi-automatic.

Are you even aware of the steps required to legally own automatic weapon? We're arguing over nothing here... It's a non-issue. These crimes aren't even being committed with automatic weapons; the media reporting just doesn't bother getting their facts straight, and people don't bother checking either...
Click to expand...

I'm referring to semi automatic rifles, and the availability. Didn't say I was anti second amendment, just saying that regulation is mentioned 3 words into the 2nd amendment.
 
BamBam0319 said:
Obama made a ****ty statement about it too.
That wasn't the gist of Trump's statement btw, but that is the only thing liberals are taking from it. He said a lot more than that. I can link it if you haven't read it.
Click to expand...

How was Obamas statement ****ty exactly?

Invalid Link Removed
 
Matthandyo said:
I was surprised honestly that she said anything, the only person I heard say anything on the subject today besides here and the news was Bernie and trump. Bernie calling for a ban on semi and auto weapons. Trump weirdly congratulating himself for thinking he was right about people of the Muslim religion.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
 
Matthandyo said:
I'm referring to semi automatic rifles, and the availability. Didn't say I was anti second amendment, just saying that regulation is mentioned 3 words into the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
I prescribe to the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted based on obvious original intent; if you read anything our founding fathers wrote/said regarding guns and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I think it's pretty clear that they would not support a complete ban on semi-automatic weapons for law-abiding Americans.

Additionally, let's look at things realistically. How many semi-automatic guns are there already in America? I'd argue far too many to get rid of. Guns are much more a part of American culture than they were in counties that banned them (ex: Australia, but let's not even get into how that worked out, as it's rather complicated). If semi-automatics were outlawed, who would turn them in? Only the law abiding citizens. Would criminals and gang members turn in their guns? I think not. With the gun culture in America, given how many there are and how many criminals have them, outright banning guns may serve only to disarm law abiding citizens, thus empowering criminals.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I prescribe to the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted based on obvious original intent; if you read anything our founding fathers wrote/said regarding guns and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I think it's pretty clear that they would not support a complete ban on semi-automatic weapons for law-abiding Americans.

Additionally, let's look at things realistically. How many semi-automatic guns are there already in America? I'd argue far too many to get rid of. Guns are much more a part of American culture than they were in counties that banned them (ex: Australia, but let's not even get into how that worked out, as it's rather complicated). If semi-automatics were outlawed, who would turn them in? Only the law abiding citizens. Would criminals and gang members turn in their guns? I think not. With the gun culture in America, given how many there are and how many criminals have them, outright banning guns may serve only to disarm law abiding citizens, thus empowering criminals.
Click to expand...


:facepalm:

You know wat ur right I might want to go read some historical documents like da constitution I ain't never been a real good reader and thought to myself if I read it, it would be so obvious!!!!



Or we could just stop production of them and make production and sale in the US illegal. No gun seize or anything. Seeing as the guy who used the gun in Orlando bought the gun her recently
 
Matthandyo said:
:facepalm:

You know wat ur right I might want to go read some historical documents like da constitution I ain't never been a real good reader and thought to myself if I read it, it would be so obvious!!!!



Or we could just stop production of them and make production and sale in the US illegal. No gun seize or anything. Seeing as the guy who used the gun in Orlando bought the gun her recently
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm the one deserving of the face palm here.

-Why would you mention hunting and semi-automatics when the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting?
-Why would you (incorrectly) say that Florida law makes it so easy to legally obtain an automatic weapon when this shooting did not involve an automatic weapon?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Yes, I'm the one deserving of the face palm here.

-Why would you mention hunting and semi-automatics when the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting?
-Why would you (incorrectly) say that Florida law makes it so easy to legally obtain an automatic weapon when this shooting did not involve an automatic weapon?
Click to expand...

That being a major point that tend to be brought up when anyone says anything about any kind of gun control ever.

Matthandyo said:
Florida law doesn't prohibit someone who has been investigated by the FBI twice as a terrorist from buying an automatic weapon
Click to expand...

Mk, I'll change it to semi auto. Do you still not get the point?
 
Matthandyo said:
That being a major point that tend to be brought up when anyone says anything about any kind of gun control ever.



Mk, I'll change it to semi auto. Do you still not get the point?
Click to expand...
Now I know what you mean. You do raise some valid points, but only weaken your argument by not getting the facts right. Let's not push for a ban on guns that are already essentially banned.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Now I know what you mean. You do raise some valid points, but only weaken your argument by not getting the facts right. Let's not push for a ban on guns that are already essentially banned.
Click to expand...

How about making the process of possessing a semi auto the same as one does when getting a fully automatic?
 
Matthandyo said:
How about making the process of possessing a semi auto the same as one does when getting a fully automatic?
Click to expand...
There's a multi-month waiting period and a multi-hundred dollar fee per item. I wouldn't go that far with it.

How about increasing penalties for gun related crimes? In reality, while mass shootings are terrible and tragic, they are a minority of shootings in America, and a fair amount of shootings are committed by repeat offenders. Perhaps stricter sentences for these crimes (shootings, armed robbery, illegal possession, etc) would help deter crime, or at least keep these violent and dangerous criminals off the streets. This would also have absolutely no negative effects on law-abiding gun owners. Win-win. But I'm pretty sure (I'll have to check though) that Obama voted against this.

Edit: It was Biden, not Obama, who voted against stricter penalties for gun related crimes (source: ontheissues).
 
muscleupcrohn said:
There's a multi-month waiting period and a multi-hundred dollar fee per item. I wouldn't go that far with it.

How about increasing penalties for gun related crimes? In reality, while mass shootings are terrible and tragic, they are a minority of shootings in America, and a fair amount of shootings are committed by repeat offenders. Perhaps stricter sentences for these crimes (shootings, armed robbery, illegal possession, etc) would help deter crime, or at least keep these violent and dangerous criminals off the streets. This would also have absolutely no negative effects on law-abiding gun owners. Win-win. But I'm pretty sure (I'll have to check though) that Obama voted against this.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
So far this year.

I don't see anything wrong with that process. I do slightly disagree with that approach. That's the same ideology that was used for the war on drugs. Intensifying petite drug offences which led to all sorts of problems. While that may work with guns, not saying it wouldn't idk, I believe that if we passed certain things like what we've mentioned before like terror watch list= not able to buy a firearm, that would be a better option to start with. 2nd would be mandatory background check for any firearm purchase, except for weapons like hand-me-downs or a gun made before say 1980. In my opinion it would be needed to make an adjustment to the purchasing process. With the amount of incidents going up annually on everything(except for self defence) something needs to be done.
 
Matthandyo said:
Invalid Link Removed
So far this year.

I don't see anything wrong with that process. I do slightly disagree with that approach. That's the same ideology that was used for the war on drugs. Intensifying petite drug offences which led to all sorts of problems. While that may work with guns, not saying it wouldn't idk, I believe that if we passed certain things like what we've mentioned before like terror watch list= not able to buy a firearm, that would be a better option to start with. 2nd would be mandatory background check for any firearm purchase, except for weapons like hand-me-downs or a gun made before say 1980. In my opinion it would be needed to make an adjustment to the purchasing process. With the amount of incidents going up annually on everything(except for self defence) something needs to be done.
Click to expand...
Most drug offenses are victimless crimes, robbing someone at gunpoint is not. There is a MASSIVE difference here... If you can't see the distinction, I don't know why I'm even bothering trying to explain things.

Also, the AR-15, the gun that's getting the most hate recently, was around in the 1960s (1959 even). I'm not sure where the arbitrary date is coming from. Also, good luck stopping people from selling guns to each other in person. How are you even going to attempt to keep track of that, ESPECIALLY if the buyer is a criminal?

I'm all for keeping guns out of terrorists hands, who isn't, but American citizens deserve due process before having their Constitutional rights taken away from them.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Most drug offenses are victimless crimes, robbing someone at gunpoint is not. There is a MASSIVE difference here... If you can't see the distinction, I don't know why I'm even bothering trying to explain things.

Also, the AR-15, the gun that's getting the most hate recently, was around in the 1960s (1959 even). I'm not sure where the arbitrary date is coming from. Also, good luck stopping people from selling guns to each other in person. How are you even going to attempt to keep track of that, ESPECIALLY if the buyer is a criminal?

I'm all for keeping guns out of terrorists hands, who isn't, but American citizens deserve due process before having their Constitutional rights taken away from them.
Click to expand...

Gun registration and licences. I don't see anything wrong with that. Well I would focus more on serious threats like someone buying stockpiles of ammo and weapons, than I would on a store robbery. BUT it's not impossible for our politicians to come to a mutual agreement. Kinda sucks when money is dictating their votes that make that harder, but that's just the way it is for now. Like I would be 100% fine with someone open carrying if they have their gun registered and licensed and they had a certification course under their belt.

I was using that date in reference to the guns that are grandfathered down.

Well I'll use Trump's way of wording it "we've got a serious gun problem, I call for a ban of all assault weapon manufacturing until we can figure out what the hell is going on!"

And honestly, if someone has been flagged and investigated for being a domestic terrorist their is a 99% chance that guy should not have access to weapons. Proof? Yesterday's shooting
 
Matthandyo said:
Gun registration and licences. I don't see anything wrong with that. Well I would focus more on serious threats like someone buying stockpiles of ammo and weapons, than I would on a store robbery. BUT it's not impossible for our politicians to come to a mutual agreement. Kinda sucks when money is dictating their votes that make that harder, but that's just the way it is for now. Like I would be 100% fine with someone open carrying if they have their gun registered and licensed and they had a certification course under their belt.

I was using that date in reference to the guns that are grandfathered down.

Well I'll use Trump's way of wording it "we've got a serious gun problem, I call for a ban of all assault weapon manufacturing until we can figure out what the hell is going on!"

And honestly, if someone has been flagged and investigated for being a domestic terrorist their is a 99% chance that guy should not have access to weapons. Proof? Yesterday's shooting
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you're focusing too much on the extreme examples of shootings. Again, while tragic and terrible, mass shootings are the minority of shootings and gun deaths in the US; they are outliers. In fact, most people who buy and stockpile guns and ammo are probably wealthy rednecks, not domestic terrorists.

Also, a n=1 sample is not proof, it's an example. In this case, it's correct, but it is not outside the realm of possibility to see the government expanded that label to disarm more citizens. Due process is vital to the American political system.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I'm afraid you're focusing too much on the extreme examples of shootings. Again, while tragic and terrible, mass shootings are the minority of shootings and gun deaths in the US; they are outliers. In fact, most people who buy and stockpile guns and ammo are probably wealthy rednecks, not domestic terrorists.

Also, a n=1 sample is not proof, it's an example. In this case, it's correct, but it is not outside the realm of possibility to see the government expanded that label to disarm more citizens. Due process is vital to the American political system.
Click to expand...

I don't think having a gun registered, being licensed and certified is focusing to much on the extreme situations. If anything that would prove to those that don't like guns that if trained and informed on firearms, having them can be much safer than not.

I live in the south, with a bunch on rednecks. They aren't wealthy and they will spend the last dime they have on weapons because they believe Obama is coming soon to take them away.

Sure. It wouldn't be to far of a stretch to believe that politicians are gonna politic and try to push their agendas. That's every politician. But to say they are actively trying to disarm the public is a bit of a stretch(if that's what you were insinuating)

We can't take domestic terrorism lightly. If they are under investigation for terrorism then we should treat them like we do suspected terrorist in other parts of the world.
 
Matthandyo said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

We first and foremost need to take the guns out of the hand of violent terrorists and other violent criminals starting with one of the biggest terrorists of them all, Hitlery Clinton.
 
Matthandyo said:
I don't think having a gun registered, being licensed and certified is focusing to much on the extreme situations. If anything that would prove to those that don't like guns that if trained and informed on firearms, having them can be much safer than not.

I live in the south, with a bunch on rednecks. They aren't wealthy and they will spend the last dime they have on weapons because they believe Obama is coming soon to take them away.

Sure. It wouldn't be to far of a stretch to believe that politicians are gonna politic and try to push their agendas. That's every politician. But to say they are actively trying to disarm the public is a bit of a stretch(if that's what you were insinuating)

We can't take domestic terrorism lightly. If they are under investigation for terrorism then we should treat them like we do suspected terrorist in other parts of the world.
Click to expand...

You mean we should treat them like the terrorists we had in custody and let them go?
 
BamBam0319 said:
Gotcha. I was legitimately wondering lol but I despise her so I had to have some fun with it when asking.
Click to expand...

She has lost all her moral integrity, Im offended at any "compassionate" comment she makes as she is a lying filthy blood thirsty pro war pro military industrial complex genocidal paid for by the banks and corporations terrorist.

Hitlery is a disgrace to Americans, the female gender and to all of humanity and needs to shut up and move to Guantanamo bay.
 
Matthandyo said:
I personally don't see the need for someone to own a fully automatic weapon, those are weapons meant for war. If anyone says they are using a fully automatic weapon or even semiautomatic for hunting they are either lying or a very ****ty shot who should find another hobby besides hunting.


Lol guy goes online looking for gun. Guy finds seller. Guy communicates with seller about cost and agrees on cost and where to meet and pick up. Guy picks up gun and pays dealer at previously decided on spot.

That's buying a gun online.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment is to protect the 1st Amendment, its not for deer hunting as Obama claims it is. Its not for hunter but self defense against all governments both foreign and domestically.

The number one key to protecting our freedoms and liberties is the balance of powers between people and government. So I say stop punishing good people from getting what they want to protect their home, families and country.
 
Matthandyo said:
If they are under investigation for terrorism then we should treat them like we do suspected terrorist in other parts of the world.
Click to expand...

So you dont support due process and are willing to take any American's liberties away just because they are suspected to be involved with something, right?

You support the repeal of the 5th Amendment and take away the protection we all have?

I say when people start thinking like this the terrorists won. They hate our freedoms, so the best thing is to let government take it aways instead so there is nothing else to take.

You can investigate and fight "suspected" terrorists without sacrificing the 5th Amendment and repealing the protections we all have in this country which is something Lord Obama has no regards for.
 
I wonder if Killary will apologize for taking money from muslim countries that kill gays?

Of course not because she doesn't really care.
 
youngandfree said:
I wonder if Killary will apologize for taking money from muslim countries that kill gays?

Of course not because she doesn't really care.
Click to expand...

She will in the bed with the Saudi's who suppress women while proclaiming to be the freedom fighter for women.

She will fight to protect the 28 pages too that will show how some of her Saudi friends financed 9/11.
 
Christians can be such great people:

Christian Pastor Celebrates Nightclub Massacre: “There’s 50 Less Pedophiles in This World”

Invalid Link Removed

[video=youtube;EUOBFjRGvPI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUOBFjRGvPI[/video]
 
Gutterpump said:
Christians can be such great people:

Christian Pastor Celebrates Nightclub Massacre: “There’s 50 Less Pedophiles in This World”

Invalid Link Removed

[video=youtube;EUOBFjRGvPI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUOBFjRGvPI[/video]
Click to expand...
There are good and bad people of every religion, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, nationality, etc...
 
Matthandyo said:
How was Obamas statement ****ty exactly?

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

You're right, I guess refusing to acknowledge radical Islam isn't ****ty. It's just pathetic and ignorant.
Also, that's not the statement from Trump I was referring to. I was referring to the statement he made that wasn't published via social media, don't know why you'd take that as his official statement. And sure, leave out all his other tweets to make him sound bad.
 
BamBam0319 said:
You're right, I guess refusing to acknowledge radical Islam isn't ****ty. It's just pathetic and ignorant.
Also, that's not the statement from Trump I was referring to. I was referring to the statement he made that wasn't published via social media, don't know why you'd take that as his official statement. And sure, leave out all his other tweets to make him sound bad.
Click to expand...

I already posted his other tweets a page or two back. Trump has been great during this incident
 
I don't see what is so difficult to understand about all of this. The liberals are literally dead wrong about this issue, and that is being proven time and time again.

A single man with a gun vs. an unarmed, defenseless population and look at the devastation.

And has anyone taken not of the targets? Unarmed school children, unarmed universities, and a place where no one is armed because they serve alcohol there. The targets are chosen for success and devastation. They aren't choosing a police station in Texas.

If a single man can do this vs. an unarmed population, just imagine what the govt. Can do.

Psychos will always have guns, bombs, etc. I'd like some non-psychos to be armed too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top