Gun owner paranoia---

It is true that Biden's policy on Keystone has an effect, but typically, the price at the pump is also affected by refining capacity and world demand. One reason gas went down in price over the last year or so had to do with less driving going on during COVID. There was also less consumption of oil overall in the world for much of 2020.

That being said, it is true that the price of oil does have a downstream effect on the price at the pump, but it usually has a delay.

Our Covid situation hasn't changed all that much in a little over a month, and to my knowledge, there have been no refining or transportation issues. It's all because of Biden's policies and expected policies. That's why traders are usually referred to as speculators.
 
It is true that Biden's policy on Keystone has an effect, but typically, the price at the pump is also affected by refining capacity and world demand. One reason gas went down in price over the last year or so had to do with less driving going on during COVID. There was also less consumption of oil overall in the world for much of 2020.

That being said, it is true that the price of oil does have a downstream effect on the price at the pump, but it usually has a delay.

Our Covid situation hasn't changed all that much in a little over a month, and to my knowledge, there have been no refining or transportation issues. It's all because of Biden's policies and expected policies. That's why traders are usually referred to as speculators.
Well, if the price of oil rose in November or December in response to Biden's election, then that would explain why gas prices are increasing now. I haven't followed the speculative market on oil recently. When did oil prices begin to rise?
 
Well, if the price of oil rose in November or December in response to Biden's election, then that would explain why gas prices are increasing now. I haven't followed the speculative market on oil recently. When did oil prices begin to rise?

They began to rise after the election.
 
Well, if the price of oil rose in November or December in response to Biden's election, then that would explain why gas prices are increasing now. I haven't followed the speculative market on oil recently. When did oil prices begin to rise?

They began to rise after the election.
Since the delay I mentioned usually is about a month or so, that makes sense.

I think the funniest thing about the progressive resistance to Keystone is that the oil will be transported one way or another. If the pipeline doesn't achieve it, then trains will.

Trains are, of course, less environmentally safe than a pipeline, but environmentalists are usually pretty bad at risk assessment in general.
 
Well, if the price of oil rose in November or December in response to Biden's election, then that would explain why gas prices are increasing now. I haven't followed the speculative market on oil recently. When did oil prices begin to rise?

They began to rise after the election.
Since the delay I mentioned usually is about a month or so, that makes sense.

I think the funniest thing about the progressive resistance to Keystone is that the oil will be transported one way or another. If the pipeline doesn't achieve it, then trains will.

Trains are, of course, less environmentally safe than a pipeline, but environmentalists are usually pretty bad at risk assessment in general.


Those trains are also owned by George Soros, a big Democrat Party contributor. It will add $30/barrel to the cost of the oil, all going into his pocket.

Big money in Democrat corruption.
 
And that's what we are talking about shitlapper, infringement on the 2nd. Constitution doesn't say that, BATFe did. On their own. No input from anyone, no congress, nothing. They just make up their rules. And the ATF CFR book has more than doubled in the last 50 years.
Some folks have an acute gun fetish, and mistakenly derive an unrealistic sense of entitlement from the 2nd Amendment, fancying that they can mince around fondling any sort of man-enhancer anywhere and any time they wish.

Not so. Such unbridled permissiveness is delusional. There is no such carte blanche conferred by any Constitutional Amendment.

Please allow me to quote directly from the legal precedent that is pertinent:

The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is largely derived from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
that ruled
"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

... In the years since that decision, there’s been a flood of legal challenges to federal and state gun control laws. According to one study, in 94 percent of those cases, courts have found that reasonable gun regulations didn’t violate the Second Amendment. They’ve mostly relied on the Heller Court’s explanation that its ruling shouldn’t “cast doubt” on several longstanding gun restrictions, including bans on gun ownership by certain individuals (like felons), prohibitions on some types of “dangerous and unusual weapons,” limits on carrying firearms in certain public places, and requirements for gun sales.
I hope that you find this documented information helpful. There are many self-serving myths about that are thoroughly bogus.
 
I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO
95% of the 'gun crimes' in the US are caused by negro gang bangers.
Start by taking away their illegal guns.
 
It seems every time I ask an anti-gun leftist, they all seem to have a different answer.
I don't chat about legal matters with gun enthusiasts, but have long heard variations on the "Big Blue Meanies are coming to take my precious away!" hysteria that makes me want to comfort them with the reality that there is no serious legislative initiative anywhere to revoke their 2nd Amendment rights.

Screen Shot 2019-09-15 at 7.45.00 AM.png
Screen Shot 2021-02-22 at 8.21.38 AM.png

They're only scaring themselves with nonsense spread by the likes of Squinty 'Fancy Pants' LaP who is accused of participating in a fraud scheme that contributed to $64 million in NRA losses and financed lavish lifestyles featuring private jet travel to exclusive resorts.
 
High legal gun ownership guarantees lots of criminals with guns.

yeah that's why crime rates are lower than they were 20 years ago
We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Law enforcement is gunned down weekly. That is rare in countries with strong gun control. They also rarely shoot people . Many of our problems are due to weak gun laws.
We lock up the wrong people and we have pretty horrible bail policies.

Did you know that almost 70% of people in prisons right now have not been convicted of any crime but are merely awaiting trial?
There aren’t any people in prison awaiting trial. People waiting for trials are in local or county jails.

A distinction without a difference
 
95% of the 'gun crimes' in the US are caused by negro gang bangers.

OK, poster 'dannyboys'......that sounds really serious.
But, before anyone here on this venue reacts........can you prove it?

I don't mean you personally hafta call the morgues or ER's......but rather, give us some authoritative sourcing that we can have confidence in.
And in you.
 
Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!! :mad-61:

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.
If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?
If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?
They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws


and who decides what's 'sane'?

Is banning 'assault weapons' sane?

Over 3 million in civilian hands, and less that 50 have been used to murder in the last 40 years.

Is that 'sane'?
More like 80 million, but yeah. The point remains.
 
Any psychological background check will have hazards, no doubt. And I agree that some probably would avoid help given that situation.

As far as the check itself goes, however, it would require reforming HIPAA law to allow for the check to access personal information. The diagnosis of mental illness would not be connected to the background check itself, because, as you said, there is the hazard of political bias. Diagnosis of something like schizophrenia would still be something that would be determined by a person's psychologist -- someone they trust, not a potential political activist type.

All that aside, I disagree with a lot of proposals by Democrats on this issue.

As the late Rush Limbaugh used to say, I know liberals like I know every square inch of my glorious naked body. That being said, I think back to when the left was pushing for gays to be out of the closet. That's all they wanted, and they'd be happy. Today, they forced their marriage down our throats, and even are able to adopt children.

I remember at a time where everybody smoked. The left asked that it be restricted in movie theaters. That's all they wanted, and they'd be happy. Today, you can't smoke a cigarette in most public places, and in blue states, not even outside in a park or on the beech.

What I'm saying here is that Democrats never stop at point A. Oh, they say that's all they want at the time, but after they reach point A, they proceed to point B, then C, then D...........

Once we agree to psychological background checks or exams, we'll be opening up a new Pandora's Box.
Which is why we MUST push with equal force in the OPPOSITE direction, JUST to maintain the status quo.

Thus:

I will not rest until violent felons can lawfully carry loaded, belt-fed machine guns in every school, courthouse, or hospital in America.

Machine guns or Valhalla!!!
 
95% of the 'gun crimes' in the US are caused by negro gang bangers.

OK, poster 'dannyboys'......that sounds really serious.
But, before anyone here on this venue reacts........can you prove it?

I don't mean you personally hafta call the morgues or ER's......but rather, give us some authoritative sourcing that we can have confidence in.
And in you.
50 percent of all murders are committed by blacks mostly in the hoods. 37 percent of all violent crime is committed by blacks.
 
Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!! :mad-61:

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.
If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?
If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?
They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws


and who decides what's 'sane'?

Is banning 'assault weapons' sane?

Over 3 million in civilian hands, and less that 50 have been used to murder in the last 40 years.

Is that 'sane'?
I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon as long you behave - too include not showing up in public with your dick hanging out.
 
50 percent of all murders are committed by blacks mostly in the hoods. 37 percent of all violent crime is committed by blacks.

So you say.
Can you show us?
Got sourcing?

And, poster Retired, are you all in on the offered stat of "95%"?
 
50 percent of all murders are committed by blacks mostly in the hoods. 37 percent of all violent crime is committed by blacks.

So you say.
Can you show us?
Got sourcing?

And, poster Retired, are you all in on the offered stat of "95%"?
I have routinely li ked to the fbi status in the past, you can find it there.
You retired with three lousy stripes? I made E5 in ten months.
gysgt is e7 retard
 
50 percent of all murders are committed by blacks mostly in the hoods. 37 percent of all violent crime is committed by blacks.

So you say.
Can you show us?
Got sourcing?

And, poster Retired, are you all in on the offered stat of "95%"?
I have routinely li ked to the fbi status in the past, you can find it there.
You retired with three lousy stripes? I made E5 in ten months.
gysgt is e7 retard
I get it, a gunny but you're presenting three stripes.

Btw, retiring as an SFC is hardly anything to boast about. Get busted?
 

Forum List

Back
Top