Were your figures pre or post the 1619 riots?
Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales
- Thread starter 3855WIN
- Start date
QPG joe has already selected beto as his gun confiscation czar. Joey wont last 4 months in office if elected; God save US; before he turns the reins of Power over to his VP. Kamala? Abrams? Who knows. She'll then be able to appoint her own VP without an election. Pelosi? Hillary? AOC? Who knows? None are Law and Order advocates so don't expect them to adhere to the US Constitution. I'm sticking with 45 all the way..
You have anything of value to add to an adult discussion on the topic or you want to do the adolescent playground routine? Take this kind of shit to Facebook.
There is an adult discussion going on here about the complication of our choices due to the current framework and dynamics of our political processes. Very few have the world as easily solved as your comment I quoted above. Most folks can see it as a complex discussion topic that is relevant to many issues we face, not an absolutist bullshit political opinion.
I've been monitoring this forum long enough to know that comments like yours are what drive these discussions in the ditch and gets important threads locked. That is why I deleted your earlier rant.
You have nothing vested in this discussion, as your mind is made up, so you could care less if this thread runs in the ditch. I suspect that would likely be your preference. The rest of us have a vested interest in learning and discussing important topics that have impacts on many aspects of hunting, shooting, conservation, etc.
I'm not gonna let this thread go in the ditch, as it is very useful to force every side to face the realities that there are no perfect candidates and being an informed voter comes with a lot of considerations. If that means your password gets yanked, that's what I'll do.
Carry on folks.
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
From my view, the solution is in the primaries.
Also, there is no real distinction between control of government and control by parties, since the parties run the government. I am not saying I like it, just noting it is not so simple. Who is this non-party affiliated government that would run the elections? We have no such thing.
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Good Lord, I hope not! That means YOU could be President! You're about to get kicked off an outdoor forum. Couldn't imagine you running the country!I have a plan to restore the integrity of the Republic. This plan wouldn't have been easily possible 10-20 years ago but now thanks to modern computers it is. The Founders of our Republic were against the establishment of partisan political parties and warned us about them. They envisioned a Govt of, by and for the People. Parties destroyed that possibility. My plan. All political parties to be invalidated and outlawed at the Federal Level. The States may retain and entertain them at their own discretion. The names of all verified eligible Americans of the allowed age and qualifications are uploaded into a dedicated data base during every applicable election cycle. 2 year for the House, 6 years for the Senate and 4 years for the Presidency. This mainframe will need to be installed in a super secure stand alone environment and location. No outside connections via landline or WIFI etc. It will be guarded by dedicated security 24/7/365. I don't know who would do that tho. Buddhist monks maybe? IDK? Anyway all the eligible citizens go into the data base and the selection is run; a lottery if you will. Lets say MTLabrador is selected as the 1st for the job of President. The Secret Service comes to his door and informs him of the good news?, and he has 24 hours to either accept or decline. If he accepts he's the next President; if he declines the SS moves onto the 2nd selectee and so on and so on. Now if you accept a Federal position you'll never be eligible for that one again but you'll be put in for the other 2 branches. Also you only serve for one term only. The beauty of this plan is that it totally eliminates the corrupting influence of money and the parties interests in Governing the Republic. Lobbyist wouldn't be able to function, corporation couldn't donate massive amount of money to parties or candidates any longer. Also we would now have a true representative govt of people from all walks of life, status, class and experience. That's the vision our Founders had. They wanted bakers, masons, farmers, barbers, seaman, grocers, doctors, businessmen etc. rubbing elbows and coming up with solutions to the problems of the day, not just ivy league elitist lawyers and grifters. Everyone would be termed out and have to go back to the jobs and careers they held prior following service to the Republic. God Bless America!
noharleyyet
Well-known member
You seriously mean that?"Nice" veiled racial reference
Tiredofthebickering
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2,814
I am related to people from whom I would not trust advice on which gas station to use. I can't imagine of one if them was selected by the "lottery" to be president. They can't even balance their own family budget.
Not to mention, the math geek side of me might add, it is currently impossible to create a genuinely random algorithm.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Absolutely, hence the worst case scenario which is a constitutional change.
In reality there is a minority that is no guns a minority that is all weapons including tanks, stinger missiles etc. The rest of us are in the middle and we need to figure out how to get along.
Though numerous conversations in real life, on this forum and through personal experience I recognize that many gun laws are totally ineffective. We, gun owners, seem to spend 99% of the time talking about how dumb the laws are and not enough time talking about solutions.
-----------------------------------------------
Hunting laws v. fair chase
We all seem to be totally fine with imposing additional, personal, restrictions on our own hunting. Also we discuss new hunting regs all the time, in fact sometimes orgs like RMEF, DU, BHA, actually advocate for new laws like wanton waste, ATV travel, use of drones, baiting, methods of take, etc.
So... why can't we even have the discussion about new gun laws or rules? PETA wants to shut down all hunting, doesn't keep us from those discussions. I would argue that hunters do a pretty good job of spear heading conservation discussions.
---------------------------------------------------
Lots of gun laws out there that are dumb. One that I'm actually on board with (on paper) are mandatory wait times. I've never needed to impulse buy a gun. Do I want that law, not really. Though I can see with regards to crimes of passion/suicide etc it might help reduce deaths. Won't really do much with criminals, but might help stop otherwise good people from making a bad call in an altered state of mind.
Universal background checks... I've had a background check for every gun I've purchased so that one seems reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------
Law I don't like, anything that takes your guns away if you seek mental health treatment. Life can be a real mother access to mental health services needs to be as easy as possible. I don't want ever want, well I'll never be able to hunt again or go to the range, to be a reason why someone doesn't get the help they need.
Seeking help is a responsible behavior we should encourage.
---------------------------------------------------
The rural urban divide is a real issue. My context of firearm ownership has always been hunting, shooting sports, protection. I can tell you what in the context of MA and getting your gun license it's 99% about getting hand guns, and mostly about concealed carry. The class I had to take and asking for rule clarification from the FRB, I got the sense that most people in Boston who want guns tend to use them on folks or targets shaped like folks.
I fully support guns for protection and concealed carry... just probably not the first thing a lot of us are thinking about when we like of people buying their first gun.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am a big fan of the 2nd amendment, but let's at least be honest about the document amongst friends on HT:
- Every single constitutional right has been subject to "reasonable" regulation since the very first days of its interpretation. There is no legal or historical basis for an absolutist - zero tolerance - reading of any of the Bill of Rights.
- From 1789 to 2007 there was no legally recognized personal right to bear arms under the Bill of Rights. Heller changed that. I like Heller, but at least I understand where it came from - and it was not the founders.
- A veiled reference to an armed resistance has grown very old. Where were all the folks rallying to the cause of Gordon Kahl? Post Ruby Ridge? Post Waco? It's all bluster. If an overturning of Heller reverts the 2nd Amendment to the legal status it had from 1789 to 2007, very very few people will do anything to risk their lives or lifestyle to "throw lead". I remember all the "over the dead body of every white southern male" bluster of the South in the 1960s. Not too many mass graves down there that I have seen.
Oh boy... 2A debate incoming...
2A is the ONLY Bill of Rights that hammers home the specific wording, "Shall not be infringed". That is absolute. or is this a veiled reference to shall be infringed, though only slightly...?
2A is the ONLY Bill of Rights that hammers home the specific wording, "Shall not be infringed". That is absolute. or is this a veiled reference to shall be infringed, though only slightly...?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
That's the vision our Founders had. They wanted bakers, masons, farmers, barbers, seaman, grocers, doctors, businessmen etc.
Lots of our Founders didn't like the "merchant" class either. Just the landed gentry had the wisdom to rule. You do need to read more history, our Founder's were not as monolithic or egalitarian as the rhetoric suggests.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
From many on this forum I would chalk it up to random choice of words. But having read enough from AZelk guy I have no doubt he chose that wording to inflame over something more common like "locked up" or "in handcuffs" or "off to prison".
noharleyyet
Well-known member
...and "veiled racism" isn't just as pejorative?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
And the 1st A says "Congress shall make no law . . . " same thing, no distinction, just as absolute - in fact, "no law" is legally more absolute than "not infringed" as that automatically results in an implied "reasonably infringed" under the centuries of constitutional interpretation. You are grasping at straws that make no legal distinction.
You and I both want strong gun rights, but making up legal frameworks or distinctions that have never existed does not help.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Here's what I see:
The Dem's "Thought" they had a mandate to change everything when Clinton was elected and had control of both houses. They passed some gun control legislation (assault weapons ban) and in doing so energized the Right and gave power to the NRA and anyone that wished to have the R' back in power. They successfully used that legislation on assault weapons to dethrone the gains the Democrats had at the time.
IF the Democrats win this election and IF they end up on top with both houses then I'm certain there will be some sort of gun control legislation. Those that understand the historical significance of what happened after the 103rd US Congress better be stern in their commitment to not go very far. History has a way of repeating it's self.
I have the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protecting my gun rights. I say any attempt to amend that Amendment is DOA. Good luck with that one.
On the other hand, I have no such Amendment to the Constitution protecting my public lands, or my environment that we need to live in a healthy way and protect my heritage and that of my grandchildren.
I wish there was another choice but what got in there in 2016 is having devastating consequences on too many of the things that I feel will be doomed with another 4 years of Trump.
The Dem's "Thought" they had a mandate to change everything when Clinton was elected and had control of both houses. They passed some gun control legislation (assault weapons ban) and in doing so energized the Right and gave power to the NRA and anyone that wished to have the R' back in power. They successfully used that legislation on assault weapons to dethrone the gains the Democrats had at the time.
IF the Democrats win this election and IF they end up on top with both houses then I'm certain there will be some sort of gun control legislation. Those that understand the historical significance of what happened after the 103rd US Congress better be stern in their commitment to not go very far. History has a way of repeating it's self.
I have the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protecting my gun rights. I say any attempt to amend that Amendment is DOA. Good luck with that one.
On the other hand, I have no such Amendment to the Constitution protecting my public lands, or my environment that we need to live in a healthy way and protect my heritage and that of my grandchildren.
I wish there was another choice but what got in there in 2016 is having devastating consequences on too many of the things that I feel will be doomed with another 4 years of Trump.
If we allow others to obfuscate and lose sight of the real issue, we've played into opponent's hands and have already lost.
The 2A issue is, and always will be, do we, or do we not, have the right to bear arms?
There's no middle-ground, no what about this, no what about that.
As citizens of this country, we have the right to own and bear arms.
Marxists and other left wing ideologues would have us think otherwise so that we can be controlled according to their agenda, which is to rule others.
Wake up before it's too late or some day we may look around and say "What happened? How did it come to this?"
Don't be fooled into being a tool for the left.
Don't think another civil war can break out in this country? Watch what happens if things get pushed to the point where moves are made to physically take firearms from those who own them.
The 2A issue is, and always will be, do we, or do we not, have the right to bear arms?
There's no middle-ground, no what about this, no what about that.
As citizens of this country, we have the right to own and bear arms.
Marxists and other left wing ideologues would have us think otherwise so that we can be controlled according to their agenda, which is to rule others.
Wake up before it's too late or some day we may look around and say "What happened? How did it come to this?"
Don't be fooled into being a tool for the left.
Don't think another civil war can break out in this country? Watch what happens if things get pushed to the point where moves are made to physically take firearms from those who own them.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I was criticizing AZelk, but did not need to lower myself to old racial allusions to do so. If we don't call that kind of crap out when we see it we are never going to actually move forward from where we have been stuck for the last 50 years.
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
With today's efforts of removing the evils of firearms, it seems that Biden's is using another systematic attempt to remove what makes a firearm effective in order to remove the firearm. If efforts to take firearms away is not going to work, do it indirectly, subversively. I don't know that the Constitution guarantees you supplies to make a firearm work.
Blaming the firearm for the events of ill people instead of fixing the problem is the norm. I guess it's not the rioters fault for destruction and hurtling people, it's the bricks and clubs fault. Same basic thought process. But either way, if he thinks it's going to get him funding and votes, he will promise the world and it becomes win at all cost.
azelkhntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 456
Well excuse me! Instead of ranting at me perhaps you can point out to me just exactly what in my post is BS? Are you saying biden didn't publicly pick beto as his gun confiscation czar? Kamala and Abrams aren't pandering hard to be the VP? You don't see the possibility of biden being sidelined in office due to his apparent mental degradation? If that happens the new VP slot is wide open without an election necessary. Big possibility right?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
You mean like Ruby Ridge and Waco? I would say the Feds are 2-0 on this one.
This "out of my cold dead hands" rhetoric is just as helpful in convincing the left to respect the 2nd A as tipping over statue's and burning cities is to making rural whites become "woke".
I am a lifelong conservative/libertarian supporter of textualist courts and the 2nd A - if you can't convince me with your logic you have no chance with the rest of society.
Similar threads
