The Trumpian binary positions

[LordBrownTrout]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

A semi automatic works great on wild hogs. A handgun for self defense.

 

[JGalt]

Need is no issue. The 2A protects desire as well. What do you think "shall not be infringed" means?

Isn't your right to bear a Thompson sub machine gun infringed? A .50 caliber? Your right to a grenade launcher? A mortar? An Abrams A-1 tank?

Actually, it is within your legal right to own any of those you mentioned, if you can afford them and pay the $200 tax stamp.

Do you live in a cave full of mushrooms or something?

Why not then classify semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines as dangerous as Thompson sub-machine guns?

Because semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines are not "dangerous". Neither are Thompson sub-machine guns, for that matter.

People are dangerous. Semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines and Thompson sub-machine guns were invented to protect us from people who are dangerous.

The havoc wrecked by the tommy gun was great enough for responsible, constitution lovingmAmericans to restrict from public access. Can we say that the AR an dAK are wrecking any less havoc?

The fully-automatic.Thompson sub-machine gun is not "restricted" from public access. Any law-abiding citizen can purchase, license, and own one. Do yourself a favor and do a little research before making yourself sound so stupid.

 

[Nosmo King]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

A semi automatic works great on wild hogs. A handgun for self defense.

Millions of wild hogs out there are they? Perhaps then such weapons should be restricted to those who are constantly vexed by wild hogs. Incidentally, the AR-15 is very effective in churches, synagogues, schools, concert venues, shopping centers, bars and clubs and theaters.

 

[Cassandro]

Climate change is the abnormal changing of temperatures causing sea ice to melt, stronger tropical storms, droughts, flooding and sea level rise.

Gun violence is the incidents of mass shootings.

Please quantify this abnormality and its man-made causation.

Which of your solutions would have prevented these incidents?

Thank you.

 

[whitehall]

The theory of (Man Made) climate change has been ongoing since political loser Al Gore decided to cash in on "carbon credits" and blackmail his own country. Nobody talks about communists except the left. What do you expect the President to do about firearm violence when the do-nothing democrat majority in congress spends it's time trying to reverse the last presidential election and the FBI claims it doesn't have the resources to determine that the Vegas shooter was motivated by the same hatred as the Sanders supporter who opened fire on a Republican baseball team.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

A semi automatic works great on wild hogs. A handgun for self defense.

Millions of wild hogs out there are they? Perhaps then such weapons should be restricted to those who are constantly vexed by wild hogs. Incidentally, the AR-15 is very effective in churches, synagogues, schools, concert venues, shopping centers, bars and clubs and theaters.

I'm a law abiding citizen. The latter doesn't pertain to me.

 

[JGalt]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

A semi automatic works great on wild hogs. A handgun for self defense.

Millions of wild hogs out there are they? Perhaps then such weapons should be restricted to those who are constantly vexed by wild hogs. Incidentally, the AR-15 is very effective in churches, synagogues, schools, concert venues, shopping centers, bars and clubs and theaters.

Dope. Some of the worst mass-shootings in this country were done with a pistol. Banning semi-auto rifles are only going to make mass-shootings with handguns increase. So don't look for AR-15's to be banned any time soon. There are too many of them out there.

But I do find it telling that you're so transfixed on the concept of mass shootings in churches, synagogues, schools, concert venues, shopping centers, bars and clubs and theaters. Even though I'm a member of the gun culture and owner of many firearms, thoughts like that never cross my mind.

You on the other hand, seem to be obsessed with it. Do yourself a favor: Go seek some help because truthfully, I think you're creeping everyone out.

 

[MarathonMike]

Since over 95% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, how about banning gun-free zones?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Isn't your right to bear a Thompson sub machine gun infringed? A .50 caliber? Your right to a grenade launcher? A mortar? An Abrams A-1 tank?

Actually, it is within your legal right to own any of those you mentioned, if you can afford them and pay the $200 tax stamp.

Do you live in a cave full of mushrooms or something?

Why not then classify semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines as dangerous as Thompson sub-machine guns?

Because semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines are not "dangerous". Neither are Thompson sub-machine guns, for that matter.

People are dangerous. Semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines and Thompson sub-machine guns were invented to protect us from people who are dangerous.

The havoc wrecked by the tommy gun was great enough for responsible, constitution lovingmAmericans to restrict from public access. Can we say that the AR an dAK are wrecking any less havoc?

The fully-automatic.Thompson sub-machine gun is not "restricted" from public access. Any law-abiding citizen can purchase, license, and own one. Do yourself a favor and do a little research before making yourself sound so stupid.

Mostly true. But local laws may differ. Some areas will not allow them at all while others will.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Since over 95% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, how about banning gun-free zones?

The last one was not in a Gun Free Zone. But that area is now a gun free zone. Many large department stores changed due to the Texas Walmart Shooting and that Missouri Moron that right after that entered a Walmart packing a ready and able AR-15 that caused quite a panic. If you won't police your own someone else must police yours.

 

[JGalt]

Actually, it is within your legal right to own any of those you mentioned, if you can afford them and pay the $200 tax stamp.

Do you live in a cave full of mushrooms or something?

Why not then classify semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines as dangerous as Thompson sub-machine guns?

Because semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines are not "dangerous". Neither are Thompson sub-machine guns, for that matter.

People are dangerous. Semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines and Thompson sub-machine guns were invented to protect us from people who are dangerous.

The havoc wrecked by the tommy gun was great enough for responsible, constitution lovingmAmericans to restrict from public access. Can we say that the AR an dAK are wrecking any less havoc?

The fully-automatic.Thompson sub-machine gun is not "restricted" from public access. Any law-abiding citizen can purchase, license, and own one. Do yourself a favor and do a little research before making yourself sound so stupid.

Mostly true. But local laws may differ. Some areas will not allow them at all while others will.

That's true, some states do have restrictions on NFA Class III weapons, which is basically unconstitutional and contrary to federal law.

Of course, some states also allow the sale, use, and possession of marijuana, which is also contrary to federal law.

 

[dblack]

Why, Lord, are Trumpians so reliant on the simplistic, the binary?

Same reason Dummycrats are. Most voters don't think critically or consistently about politics.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

A semi automatic works great on wild hogs. A handgun for self defense.

Millions of wild hogs out there are they? Perhaps then such weapons should be restricted to those who are constantly vexed by wild hogs. Incidentally, the AR-15 is very effective in churches, synagogues, schools, concert venues, shopping centers, bars and clubs and theaters.

Dope. Some of the worst mass-shootings in this country were done with a pistol. Banning semi-auto rifles are only going to make mass-shootings with handguns increase. So don't look for AR-15's to be banned any time soon. There are too many of them out there.

But I do find it telling that you're so transfixed on the concept of mass shootings in churches, synagogues, schools, concert venues, shopping centers, bars and clubs and theaters. Even though I'm a member of the gun culture and owner of many firearms, thoughts like that never cross my mind.

You on the other hand, seem to be obsessed with it. Do yourself a favor: Go seek some help because truthfully, I think you're creeping everyone out.

The worst for handguns were done before the public and communities hardened and trained to prevent it from happening. They worked to minimize the body count. Today, if you use a handgun, the most you are going to get is 2 to 4. A Handgun can barely make the cut to be considered a Mass Shooting if the cut is 4 bodies. But the record goes to the AR-15 even after the hardening went into affect. Just look at the damage that one individual did in just 45 seconds in Texas with his AR. And he wasn't an experienced shooter by any means. He wasn't combat trained. Yes, the California shooter with the handgun did considerable damage but he was the exception who was a combat trained shooter with extreme skill sets. The AR takes a poor shooter with zero skill sets and makes them a world class mass killer because his tool is designed to do just that in real combat. The day of the high body count with the handgun is gone. The AR is king. Long Live King, right?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Why not then classify semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines as dangerous as Thompson sub-machine guns?

Because semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines are not "dangerous". Neither are Thompson sub-machine guns, for that matter.

People are dangerous. Semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines and Thompson sub-machine guns were invented to protect us from people who are dangerous.

The havoc wrecked by the tommy gun was great enough for responsible, constitution lovingmAmericans to restrict from public access. Can we say that the AR an dAK are wrecking any less havoc?

The fully-automatic.Thompson sub-machine gun is not "restricted" from public access. Any law-abiding citizen can purchase, license, and own one. Do yourself a favor and do a little research before making yourself sound so stupid.

Mostly true. But local laws may differ. Some areas will not allow them at all while others will.

That's true, some states do have restrictions on NFA Class III weapons, which is basically unconstitutional and contrary to federal law.

Of course, some states also allow the sale, use, and possession of marijuana, which is also contrary to federal law.

Again, you are ignoring the 14th amendment. The State and lower governments have the right as long as they use "Due Process" to regulate firearms. The Federal is the one that is highly limited to that affect. I question if the 1934 Firearms Act is really that legal because of the limitations placed on the Federals. The State is less inhibited.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Because semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines are not "dangerous". Neither are Thompson sub-machine guns, for that matter.

People are dangerous. Semi-automatic firing systems coupled with high capacity magazines and Thompson sub-machine guns were invented to protect us from people who are dangerous.

The havoc wrecked by the tommy gun was great enough for responsible, constitution lovingmAmericans to restrict from public access. Can we say that the AR an dAK are wrecking any less havoc?

The fully-automatic.Thompson sub-machine gun is not "restricted" from public access. Any law-abiding citizen can purchase, license, and own one. Do yourself a favor and do a little research before making yourself sound so stupid.

Mostly true. But local laws may differ. Some areas will not allow them at all while others will.

That's true, some states do have restrictions on NFA Class III weapons, which is basically unconstitutional and contrary to federal law.

Of course, some states also allow the sale, use, and possession of marijuana, which is also contrary to federal law.

Again, you are ignoring the 14th amendment. The State and lower governments have the right as long as they use "Due Process" to regulate firearms. The Federal is the one that is highly limited to that affect. I question if the 1934 Firearms Act is really that legal because of the limitations placed on the Federals. The State is less inhibited.

Jgalt, I think I need to expand my thought a bit. I do realize that at the Federal Level a line has to be drawn. Maybe the line should be drawn at the fully auto weapon and above. That does make sense. Regulate them, not ban them. The Ban on the full auto weapons after a certain date is going above and beyond common sense though. If I go to all the trouble to get the proper FFL license to buy an older Full Auto, there are enough out there for me to buy if I have enough money. The only thing it did was artificially inflate the price of the older full auto weapons.

For instance, the Government pays right around 1600 bucks a copy for a brand new M-16A-4. But a M-16A-1 or 2 on the used market will run you starting out at 15,000 for a worn out,needs to be reworked unit. Because the A-4 was introduced after the cutoff date, you can't buy one at all. And the A-4 is less deadly than the A-1 and A-2.

But, you can buy an AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) for right around 3000 all day long. There were over 14,000 of them made and almost all of them were released to military surplus in 1992 by the Air Force. There is no difference between the AR-15 Model 601 than the AR-15 Model 603 because the 601 was upgraded to the 603 in the 70s. The Model 603 is the Colt designation for the M-16A-2. The 601 didn't originally have the M designator because it was not an army or marine rifle, it was Air Force and purchased starting in 1962 to 1967. These are in great shape, been cared for well, haven't been drug through the rice paddies, mistreated, been kept clean, serviced on a regular basis. They are cheap in comparison. I would much rather have one of these than the wore out M-16A-1 or A-2 any day no matter what the cost. And they are part of history. Yes, Dorathy, almost all your AR parts fit them. These are the Daddy to the Civilian AR-15 and the Grand Daddy to the M-16.

Putting that cutoff date doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Full Auto Weapons haven't really been used for crimes for many decades. There have only been a couple of times since the 40s that they have been used. And the only way to get them have been through FFL licensing for legal means which have not been any problem at all. Or steal them from an armory which the few times they have been used, is where they were procured from.

I think we need to work on the full auto law and stop the ban by the date of manufacture. A Solution was created for a problem that didn't exist.

 

[JGalt]

The havoc wrecked by the tommy gun was great enough for responsible, constitution lovingmAmericans to restrict from public access. Can we say that the AR an dAK are wrecking any less havoc?

The fully-automatic.Thompson sub-machine gun is not "restricted" from public access. Any law-abiding citizen can purchase, license, and own one. Do yourself a favor and do a little research before making yourself sound so stupid.

Mostly true. But local laws may differ. Some areas will not allow them at all while others will.

That's true, some states do have restrictions on NFA Class III weapons, which is basically unconstitutional and contrary to federal law.

Of course, some states also allow the sale, use, and possession of marijuana, which is also contrary to federal law.

Again, you are ignoring the 14th amendment. The State and lower governments have the right as long as they use "Due Process" to regulate firearms. The Federal is the one that is highly limited to that affect. I question if the 1934 Firearms Act is really that legal because of the limitations placed on the Federals. The State is less inhibited.

Jgalt, I think I need to expand my thought a bit. I do realize that at the Federal Level a line has to be drawn. Maybe the line should be drawn at the fully auto weapon and above. That does make sense. Regulate them, not ban them. The Ban on the full auto weapons after a certain date is going above and beyond common sense though. If I go to all the trouble to get the proper FFL license to buy an older Full Auto, there are enough out there for me to buy if I have enough money. The only thing it did was artificially inflate the price of the older full auto weapons.

For instance, the Government pays right around 1600 bucks a copy for a brand new M-16A-4. But a M-16A-1 or 2 on the used market will run you starting out at 15,000 for a worn out,needs to be reworked unit. Because the A-4 was introduced after the cutoff date, you can't buy one at all. And the A-4 is less deadly than the A-1 and A-2.

But, you can buy an AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) for right around 3000 all day long. There were over 14,000 of them made and almost all of them were released to military surplus in 1992 by the Air Force. There is no difference between the AR-15 Model 601 than the AR-15 Model 603 because the 601 was upgraded to the 603 in the 70s. The Model 603 is the Colt designation for the M-16A-2. The 601 didn't originally have the M designator because it was not an army or marine rifle, it was Air Force and purchased starting in 1962 to 1967. These are in great shape, been cared for well, haven't been drug through the rice paddies, mistreated, been kept clean, serviced on a regular basis. They are cheap in comparison. I would much rather have one of these than the wore out M-16A-1 or A-2 any day no matter what the cost. And they are part of history. Yes, Dorathy, almost all your AR parts fit them. These are the Daddy to the Civilian AR-15 and the Grand Daddy to the M-16.

Putting that cutoff date doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Full Auto Weapons haven't really been used for crimes for many decades. There have only been a couple of times since the 40s that they have been used. And the only way to get them have been through FFL licensing for legal means which have not been any problem at all. Or steal them from an armory which the few times they have been used, is where they were procured from.

I think we need to work on the full auto law and stop the ban by the date of manufacture. A Solution was created for a problem that didn't exist.

Doesn't matter much to me for two reasons: They're too expensive for my taste and an NFA firearm hasn't been used in the commission of a crime ever since the Gun Control Act of '34.

 

[Nosmo King]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

A semi automatic works great on wild hogs. A handgun for self defense.

Millions of wild hogs out there are they? Perhaps then such weapons should be restricted to those who are constantly vexed by wild hogs. Incidentally, the AR-15 is very effective in churches, synagogues, schools, concert venues, shopping centers, bars and clubs and theaters.

Dope. Some of the worst mass-shootings in this country were done with a pistol. Banning semi-auto rifles are only going to make mass-shootings with handguns increase. So don't look for AR-15's to be banned any time soon. There are too many of them out there.

But I do find it telling that you're so transfixed on the concept of mass shootings in churches, synagogues, schools, concert venues, shopping centers, bars and clubs and theaters. Even though I'm a member of the gun culture and owner of many firearms, thoughts like that never cross my mind.

You on the other hand, seem to be obsessed with it. Do yourself a favor: Go seek some help because truthfully, I think you're creeping everyone out.

Americans should not have to look over their shoulders for the next gun culture fanatic to open fire at a public event.

Sad you are inable to show any empathy for those who died or were wounded in the mass shootings plaguing our nation.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The fully-automatic.Thompson sub-machine gun is not "restricted" from public access. Any law-abiding citizen can purchase, license, and own one. Do yourself a favor and do a little research before making yourself sound so stupid.

Mostly true. But local laws may differ. Some areas will not allow them at all while others will.

That's true, some states do have restrictions on NFA Class III weapons, which is basically unconstitutional and contrary to federal law.

Of course, some states also allow the sale, use, and possession of marijuana, which is also contrary to federal law.

Again, you are ignoring the 14th amendment. The State and lower governments have the right as long as they use "Due Process" to regulate firearms. The Federal is the one that is highly limited to that affect. I question if the 1934 Firearms Act is really that legal because of the limitations placed on the Federals. The State is less inhibited.

Jgalt, I think I need to expand my thought a bit. I do realize that at the Federal Level a line has to be drawn. Maybe the line should be drawn at the fully auto weapon and above. That does make sense. Regulate them, not ban them. The Ban on the full auto weapons after a certain date is going above and beyond common sense though. If I go to all the trouble to get the proper FFL license to buy an older Full Auto, there are enough out there for me to buy if I have enough money. The only thing it did was artificially inflate the price of the older full auto weapons.

For instance, the Government pays right around 1600 bucks a copy for a brand new M-16A-4. But a M-16A-1 or 2 on the used market will run you starting out at 15,000 for a worn out,needs to be reworked unit. Because the A-4 was introduced after the cutoff date, you can't buy one at all. And the A-4 is less deadly than the A-1 and A-2.

But, you can buy an AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) for right around 3000 all day long. There were over 14,000 of them made and almost all of them were released to military surplus in 1992 by the Air Force. There is no difference between the AR-15 Model 601 than the AR-15 Model 603 because the 601 was upgraded to the 603 in the 70s. The Model 603 is the Colt designation for the M-16A-2. The 601 didn't originally have the M designator because it was not an army or marine rifle, it was Air Force and purchased starting in 1962 to 1967. These are in great shape, been cared for well, haven't been drug through the rice paddies, mistreated, been kept clean, serviced on a regular basis. They are cheap in comparison. I would much rather have one of these than the wore out M-16A-1 or A-2 any day no matter what the cost. And they are part of history. Yes, Dorathy, almost all your AR parts fit them. These are the Daddy to the Civilian AR-15 and the Grand Daddy to the M-16.

Putting that cutoff date doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Full Auto Weapons haven't really been used for crimes for many decades. There have only been a couple of times since the 40s that they have been used. And the only way to get them have been through FFL licensing for legal means which have not been any problem at all. Or steal them from an armory which the few times they have been used, is where they were procured from.

I think we need to work on the full auto law and stop the ban by the date of manufacture. A Solution was created for a problem that didn't exist.

Doesn't matter much to me for two reasons: They're too expensive for my taste and an NFA firearm hasn't been used in the commission of a crime ever since the Gun Control Act of '34.

You do realize that you just made the case for bumping the AR and the AK up to the NFA level if they make an exception to the cutoff date, don't you. The same argument can be made between CCW versus non CCW handguns. Only ONE illegal shooting by a civilian has been done by a CCW person in the history of the CCW and he was a retired Cop. So even that would be a grey area. But there are thousands of non CCW shootings every year. And quite a few uncalled for cop shootings each year. But the non cop CCW person has NEVER been involved in a bad shooting. Maybe we need to come up with a program for the AR that seperates it from the others so that it gets handled at least with the same care that a CCW program is done. Let's face it, you can say it's not a problem but it IS a problem. When it doesn't go wrong, it's a good thing. But when it goes wrong it's deadly and a high body count.

 

[JGalt]

The Climate always changes. No one knows what the human contribution is and even if you did you aren't going to move the needle much when the humans contributing the most greenhouse gasses are doing the least to stop it.

Gun control? When the guns hop down the streets by themselves shooting people I will agree with you that controlling the guns would be a logical solution to stop mass shootings.

The weather always changes. Climate is a different animal altogether.

Why do Americans absolutely need a military rifle for defense? A pistol or even a coach gun could do the trick

A semi automatic works great on wild hogs. A handgun for self defense.

Millions of wild hogs out there are they? Perhaps then such weapons should be restricted to those who are constantly vexed by wild hogs. Incidentally, the AR-15 is very effective in churches, synagogues, schools, concert venues, shopping centers, bars and clubs and theaters.

Dope. Some of the worst mass-shootings in this country were done with a pistol. Banning semi-auto rifles are only going to make mass-shootings with handguns increase. So don't look for AR-15's to be banned any time soon. There are too many of them out there.

But I do find it telling that you're so transfixed on the concept of mass shootings in churches, synagogues, schools, concert venues, shopping centers, bars and clubs and theaters. Even though I'm a member of the gun culture and owner of many firearms, thoughts like that never cross my mind.

You on the other hand, seem to be obsessed with it. Do yourself a favor: Go seek some help because truthfully, I think you're creeping everyone out.

Americans should not have to look over their shoulders for the next gun culture fanatic to open fire at a public event.

Sad you are inable to show any empathy for those who died or were wounded in the mass shootings plaguing our nation.

Not my problem. I carry to protect myself and my family, not you or anyone else. So if you're so torn up over those shootings, take a class, get a permit, and purchase a weapon.

But don't count on me to protect you, that's the job for the police.