TRUMP 2024

664,502 Views | 7594 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by caryking
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Ncsufist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
DrummerboyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is reportedly a Haitian migrant chopping up an animal in Springfield, Ohio.

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

Being an N. C. State fan builds great character!
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Space Force veteran speaks re "Diversity Equity and Inclusion" in the military.

Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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".
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Betcha hearing such a song sung at a Trump rally will trigger ole Sieve, #daNappy and #grantnut.

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

hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


how is this different then someone field dressing a deer?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ultra Maga Party, Max Evans, has passed away. Great tribute calling out the difference in MAGA and RINOs.

Gulfstream4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Gulfstream4 said:

Werewolf said:

#Sieve, have you ever heard a 100K crowd sing the Star Spangled Banner, impromptu? Here goes........ :-)




Liberals absolutely hate this. Patriotism, the flag, Star spangled Banner, Trumpโ€ฆall of it infuriates the America hating left.

Y'all's wishcasting is otherworldly.

You sound like Laura Loomer.

If we're comparing patriotism on display at big public events, even Republicans were saying how stark the patriotism on display at the DNC was, y'all just choose to ignore it just because Lee Greenwood isn't there.

Of all the criticisms to throw around, "the left hates America" is probably the dumbest.


You ever notice when you see an American flag at a house, boat, camper, on the back of an truckโ€ฆetc. you automatically know that's not a democrat?
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gulfstream4 said:

Civilized said:

Gulfstream4 said:

Werewolf said:

#Sieve, have you ever heard a 100K crowd sing the Star Spangled Banner, impromptu? Here goes........ :-)




Liberals absolutely hate this. Patriotism, the flag, Star spangled Banner, Trumpโ€ฆall of it infuriates the America hating left.

Y'all's wishcasting is otherworldly.

You sound like Laura Loomer.

If we're comparing patriotism on display at big public events, even Republicans were saying how stark the patriotism on display at the DNC was, y'all just choose to ignore it just because Lee Greenwood isn't there.

Of all the criticisms to throw around, "the left hates America" is probably the dumbest.


You ever notice when you see an American flag at a house, boat, camper, on the back of a truckโ€ฆetc. you automatically know that's not a democrat?


Civ probably only has BLM, LGBTQRSTUV, and Ukraine flags at his house.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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


SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hey, I have a question! Why did Mike Pence refuse to endorse Donald Trump? Isn't that strange?
DrummerboyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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
Being an N. C. State fan builds great character!
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. If I want to own a tank, that should be able to happen. That said, maybe I could.. I don't know.
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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.
Ncsufist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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 functionalโ€ฆ. 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.
Ncsufist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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 askedโ€ฆ. Trump won't be a convicted felon for much longer.

Eta. Not the felony case. This is the civil real estate loan one.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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, wellโ€ฆ. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownershipโ€ฆ
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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, wellโ€ฆ. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownershipโ€ฆ
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.
Ncsufist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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, wellโ€ฆ. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownershipโ€ฆ
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.
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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, wellโ€ฆ. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownershipโ€ฆ
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?
Ncsufist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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, wellโ€ฆ. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownershipโ€ฆ
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.
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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, wellโ€ฆ. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownershipโ€ฆ
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?
ncsupack1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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, wellโ€ฆ. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownershipโ€ฆ
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?
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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, wellโ€ฆ. they are wrong. They were wrong for prohibiting blacks and they are wrong with any ruling interpreting 2nd amendment as anything short of full ownershipโ€ฆ
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 clearโ€ฆ. Point me to the place that the 2nd amendment speaks of a firearmโ€ฆ

"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"
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Andโ€ฆ that is a violation of the second amendmentโ€ฆ. 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 functionalโ€ฆ. 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.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Economic populism is a disease

FlossyDFlynt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Economic populism is a disease


Ah yes, taking on more debt for a depreciating asset. Solid plan there
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Economic populism is a disease


At one point, deduction on car interest as well on home interest was a thingโ€ฆ. I'm not sure Economic Populism was a thing thenโ€ฆ
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Economic populism is a disease


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!".
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SmaptyWolf said:

hokiewolf said:

Economic populism is a disease


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
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

SmaptyWolf said:

hokiewolf said:

Economic populism is a disease


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.
First Page Last Page
Page 177 of 217
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.