It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

Space Force veteran speaks re "Diversity Equity and Inclusion" in the military.

Holy crap. 🤯

Who else but the President could say they are GONE with that level of authority and confidence?!

What an absolute honor to be offered a position, on the spot, for a special task force, to ensure it never happens again.

Space forces first veteran. pic.twitter.com/4Dw4fZNS8R

— 💥Righteous Indignation💥 (@Qanon4Trump) October 5, 2024

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

We call this concept "the camel's nose".

Betcha hearing such a song sung at a Trump rally will trigger ole Sieve, #daNappy and #grantnut.

Most here will enjoy..............

🎶 O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder, Consider all the worlds thy hands have made;

I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder, Thy power throughout the universe displayed

Then sings my soul, my Saviour God, to thee: How great thou art! How great thou art!

Then sings my… pic.twitter.com/Nwcwol53iD

— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) October 6, 2024

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

This is reportedly a Haitian migrant chopping up an animal in Springfield, Ohio.

If true, then Trump and J. D. Vance were correct.

🚨 SPRINGFIELD, OHIO:

𝗔 𝗛𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰.

This video was taken by a resident of the Red Couch Apartments. pic.twitter.com/SFp4iSd9d0

— Tayler Hansen (@TaylerUSA) October 8, 2024

---

how is this different then someone field dressing a deer?

Ultra Maga Party, Max Evans, has passed away. Great tribute calling out the difference in MAGA and RINOs.

In Loving Memory of Max Evan @MaxEvansUMP

Max Evans, a beacon of courage and patriotism, whose spirit knew no bounds. His sudden departure leaves a void, but his fearless legacy as Ultra Maga Max will echo through the ages. Collaborating with Max was an honor; his passion was… pic.twitter.com/TtPISBrUtu

— RyanMatta 🇺🇸 🦅 (@RyanMattaMedia) October 7, 2024

As the great-great grandson of a slave, speaking at the Republican national convention in prime time is wildest dreams of my ancestors.

We are the party of LIBERTY.
The party of PROSPERITY.
And with President Trump at the helm, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. pic.twitter.com/nDdRjrJZVR

— Wesley Hunt (@WesleyHuntTX) July 16, 2024

Excellent presentation of activities outside the eyes of everyday Americans. We experience #devolution these last four years. Casualties taken over the course of the battle. Wake up #sheeple, the longer this goes the more casualties are taken........as you cannot be told, you must be shown. See Q post.

Witness the greatest military operation in the history of mankind. #Q, #Q+, #+++, #WWG1WGA

[Coincidences] pic.twitter.com/bbwY902MWg

— 𝙰𝚊𝚗𝚘𝚗 (@AAnon55) October 7, 2024

Hey, I have a question! Why did Mike Pence refuse to endorse Donald Trump? Isn't that strange?

Trump is hosting 250 linemen at Doral to help with power restoration after Hurricane Milton. I believe the rooms are being donated and will try to confirm that.

EDIT: Newsweek confirms that the rooms are free.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-hurricane-milton-1966623

https://thepostmillennial.com/trump-houses-over-250-linemen-in-his-luxury-florida-resort-as-they-repair-damage-from-hurricane-milton?utm_campaign=64483

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

Lol, remember back when gun enthusiasts were interested in hunting rifles, shotguns, and antique six shooters? Back before they went F'ING INSANE.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

---

I can't see your previous reply. But you can import an uzi legally with an approved ATF form 6 part I. As I said with the correct license you own anything. There are many personally owned tanks by the way. Most are demil. But there are some that are fully functional…. With the appropriate license and tax stamp.

Eta. Forgot the important part. As long as it isn't imported or manufactured in a proscribed country. I'm guessing terrorist states?? Not really sure which countries are on that list.

I didn't watch the streamed appeal hearing for trumps criminal cases. But I keep seeing how the prosecutors in their closing argument were basically "begging to not be sanctioned". From the statements of the judges and questions asked…. Trump won't be a convicted felon for much longer.

Eta. Not the felony case. This is the civil real estate loan one.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

---

Yea, well…. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownership…

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

---

Yea, well…. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownership…

---

Soooooo, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles? Sounds totally reasonable. What could go wrong?

Let me guess, after the 170th airliner gets shot down, after thoughts and prayers, you'll call for missile defense on all passenger planes as the only solution to an intractable problem.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

---

Yea, well…. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownership…

---

Soooooo, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles? Sounds totally reasonable. What could go wrong?

Let me guess, after the 170th airliner gets shot down, after thoughts and prayers, you'll call for missile defense on all passenger planes as the only solution to an intractable problem.

---

Again. If you can get the correct license. Otherwise it would be illegal for black water and every other pmc.

Ncsufist said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

---

Yea, well…. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownership…

---

Soooooo, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles? Sounds totally reasonable. What could go wrong?

Let me guess, after the 170th airliner gets shot down, after thoughts and prayers, you'll call for missile defense on all passenger planes as the only solution to an intractable problem.

---

Again. If you can get the correct license. Otherwise it would be illegal for black water and every other pmc.

---

You agree with Cary that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and any unlicensed yocal should be allowed to have one?

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

---

Yea, well…. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownership…

---

Soooooo, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles? Sounds totally reasonable. What could go wrong?

Let me guess, after the 170th airliner gets shot down, after thoughts and prayers, you'll call for missile defense on all passenger planes as the only solution to an intractable problem.

---

Again. If you can get the correct license. Otherwise it would be illegal for black water and every other pmc.

---

You agree with Cary that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and any unlicensed yocal should be allowed to have one?

---

A missile is not a firearm.

Ncsufist said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

---

Yea, well…. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownership…

---

Soooooo, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles? Sounds totally reasonable. What could go wrong?

Let me guess, after the 170th airliner gets shot down, after thoughts and prayers, you'll call for missile defense on all passenger planes as the only solution to an intractable problem.

---

Again. If you can get the correct license. Otherwise it would be illegal for black water and every other pmc.

---

You agree with Cary that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and any unlicensed yocal should be allowed to have one?

---

A missile is not a firearm.

---

Does the 2nd Amendment mention firearms specifically? Weren't you just talking about tanks?

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

---

Yea, well…. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownership…

---

Soooooo, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles? Sounds totally reasonable. What could go wrong?

Let me guess, after the 170th airliner gets shot down, after thoughts and prayers, you'll call for missile defense on all passenger planes as the only solution to an intractable problem.

---

Again. If you can get the correct license. Otherwise it would be illegal for black water and every other pmc.

---

You agree with Cary that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and any unlicensed yocal should be allowed to have one?

---

A missile is not a firearm.

---

Does the 2nd Amendment mention firearms specifically? Weren't you just talking about tanks?

---

Ncsufist said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

---

Yea, well…. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownership…

---

Soooooo, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles? Sounds totally reasonable. What could go wrong?

Let me guess, after the 170th airliner gets shot down, after thoughts and prayers, you'll call for missile defense on all passenger planes as the only solution to an intractable problem.

---

Again. If you can get the correct license. Otherwise it would be illegal for black water and every other pmc.

---

You agree with Cary that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and any unlicensed yocal should be allowed to have one?

---

A missile is not a firearm.

---

Just so I'm clear…. Point me to the place that the 2nd amendment speaks of a firearm…

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Ncsufist said:

---

Civilized said:

---

It is a clear farce to claim the left wants to abolish either the first or second amendments just because there are reasonable conversations to be had regarding the rights and social responsibilities of private companies to moderate open forums and sensible gun control.

There is no electoral support amongst "the left," obviously meaning the vast majority of the electorate and the politicians they have put in office, for the government to criminalize misinformation, or eliminate the right for Americans to bear arms.

It's very obvious the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited; you can't buy an Uzi or bazooka from your local gun show and it's not in any way unreasonable to ask if there should be prohibitions on other guns used in mass casualty events.

Personally, I don't think an assault rifle ban fixes the problem since the country is already so awash in guns, but the simple conversation regarding such a ban is not evidence of hating the Constitution or second amendment.

It's just an acknowledgment of how very aberrant the rate of mass shootings in this country are relative to the west of the world, and a good faith conversation regarding how to quell that violence.

---

Any federal dealer can order you an uzi with the correct license.

---

They can't legally import you a new one and haven't been able to for decades. They can maybe get their hands on a decades-old Uzi on the secondary market and resell it.

My point is they're an example of a firearm restriction that nobody discusses as being an attempt to abolish the second amendment.

---

And… that is a violation of the second amendment…. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Gun control laws have been around forever (a reminder that ironically some of the earliest gun control in this country was prohibiting blacks from owning guns until after the Civil War) and have been deemed constitutional over and over with few exceptions.

---

I can't see your previous reply. But you can import an uzi legally with an approved ATF form 6 part I. As I said with the correct license you own anything. There are many personally owned tanks by the way. Most are demil. But there are some that are fully functional…. With the appropriate license and tax stamp.

Eta. Forgot the important part. As long as it isn't imported or manufactured in a proscribed country. I'm guessing terrorist states?? Not really sure which countries are on that list.

---

Fully automatic Uzi's are not legal to import for personal civilian use and haven't been for nearly 40 years.

You're proving my point that you've got to jump through fourteen hoops and claim it's for research or some other specialized purpose in order to get your hands on a new one.

The number of fully automatic Uzi's imported became negligible after the late 80s due to constitutionally sound gun controls largely prohibiting fully automatic weapons.

Again, the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the right to bear arms does not mean "any type of arms, for any reason" That's the broader point.

Economic populism is a disease

Detroit Economic Club - Trump is expected to announce his plan for making interest on car loans fully tax deductible, per speech excerpts from the campaign.

— Libbey Dean (@LibbeyDean_) October 10, 2024

hokiewolf said:

---

Economic populism is a disease

Detroit Economic Club - Trump is expected to announce his plan for making interest on car loans fully tax deductible, per speech excerpts from the campaign.

— Libbey Dean (@LibbeyDean_) October 10, 2024

---

Ah yes, taking on more debt for a depreciating asset. Solid plan there

hokiewolf said:

---

Economic populism is a disease

Detroit Economic Club - Trump is expected to announce his plan for making interest on car loans fully tax deductible, per speech excerpts from the campaign.

— Libbey Dean (@LibbeyDean_) October 10, 2024

---

At one point, deduction on car interest as well on home interest was a thing…. I'm not sure Economic Populism was a thing then…

hokiewolf said:

---

Economic populism is a disease

Detroit Economic Club - Trump is expected to announce his plan for making interest on car loans fully tax deductible, per speech excerpts from the campaign.

— Libbey Dean (@LibbeyDean_) October 10, 2024

---

You guys love to bawl about the details of Kamala's economic plans... but when are you going to seriously talk about all of the stuff that Trump is proposing? Or do you just assume he's lying about all of it?

His current plans would add $7.5 TRILLION to the debt. Even hardcore Marxists are like "Jesus, dude, settle down!".

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Economic populism is a disease

Detroit Economic Club - Trump is expected to announce his plan for making interest on car loans fully tax deductible, per speech excerpts from the campaign.

— Libbey Dean (@LibbeyDean_) October 10, 2024

---

You guys love to bawl about the details of Kamala's economic plans... but when are you going to seriously talk about all of the stuff that Trump is proposing? Or do you just assume he's lying about all of it?

His current plans would add $7.5 TRILLION to the debt. Even hardcore Marxists are like "Jesus, dude, settle down!".

---

I believe I've been pretty clear I don't like much of Trumps economic plans. Tariffs don't work in most industries except maybe steel with respect to protecting jobs.

Neither candidate has a plan that address true economic issues. Harris thinks building g an extra million homes while giving away more incentives to buy homes is going to fix the problem.

We have 6th graders throwing **** on the wall to see if it sticks to get votes. It's ridiculous

hokiewolf said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Economic populism is a disease

Detroit Economic Club - Trump is expected to announce his plan for making interest on car loans fully tax deductible, per speech excerpts from the campaign.

— Libbey Dean (@LibbeyDean_) October 10, 2024

---

You guys love to bawl about the details of Kamala's economic plans... but when are you going to seriously talk about all of the stuff that Trump is proposing? Or do you just assume he's lying about all of it?

His current plans would add $7.5 TRILLION to the debt. Even hardcore Marxists are like "Jesus, dude, settle down!".

---

I believe I've been pretty clear I don't like much of Trumps economic plans. Tariffs don't work in most industries except maybe steel with respect to protecting jobs.

Neither candidate has a plan that address true economic issues. Harris thinks building g an extra million homes while giving away more incentives to buy homes is going to fix the problem.

We have 6th graders throwing **** on the wall to see if it sticks to get votes. It's ridiculous

---

Hokie you're commercial construction right?

Probably a two-beer conversation but I'd love your thoughts on housing. It's a tough nut to crack at least quickly and I don't think much or at least most of the problem is on the buy-side, which is what Harris' incentives attempt to address. That would improve access to the market (while also driving up the cost of the home commensurately) but so much of the problem remains unaddressed or under-addressed on the supply side.

One of the biggest things I think we can do is incentivize/value community college and vocational educations that train skilled trades and craftsmen to help ease the labor shortage.

Deleting tariffs on Canadian lumber would help.

The NAHB and their local arms work extensively lobbying local, state, and federal government for common-sense development permitting and zoning regulations that facilitate density and smart urban growth, which is absolutely necessary.