Mileage Psycho Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Commonsense says if you are not allowed on a plane because you are on a terror watch list, you shouldn't be able to purchase gun, sure there might be some schmuck who doesn't belong on the list but I'm thinking 99.9% of those that are on the list deserve to be. Trump makes sense then he goes off the rails suggesting that the bar patrons should be armed, drunks with guns is FTW according to Trump LOL Quote Trump Veers From Party Line on Gun Control By ASHLEY PARKER and DAVID M. HERSZENHORNJUNE 15, 2016 WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that people on the terror watch list should be barred from buying firearms, putting himself in the center of a gun-control debate in Congress revived by the worst mass shooting in United States history. Mr. Trump’s stance, expressed in a Twitter post, does not necessarily jibe with the positions of the Republican Party and the National Rifle Association, whose endorsement Mr. Trump frequently boasts about on the campaign trail. His tweet could be read to support measures pushed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans in Congress, reflecting the unusual nuances of the issue, which touches on public safety and civil rights beyond the Second Amendment. “I will be meeting with the N.R.A., who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no-fly list, to buy guns,” Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, wrote Wednesday morning on Twitter. His comment came three days after 49 people were killed when a gunman who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State stormed an Orlando nightclub. As he has after other mass shootings, Mr. Trump said Wednesday that more gun ownership was the answer, not less. He said that the carnage could have been minimized “if some of those great people that were in that club that night had guns strapped to their waist or strapped to their ankle, and if the bullets were going in the other direction.” The rest of the story. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/us/politics/donald-trump-gun-control-nra.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Mileage Psycho said: Commonsense says if you are not allowed on a plane because you are on a terror watch list, you shouldn't be able to purchase gun, sure there might be some schmuck who doesn't belong on the list but I'm thinking 99.9% of those that are on the list deserve to be. Trump makes sense then he goes off the rails suggesting that the bar patrons should be armed, drunks with guns is FTW according to Trump LOL AGREED. But that list needs to be overseen carefully and cautiously. "Lists" can be a slippery slope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted June 19, 2016 Author Share Posted June 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Zambroski said: AGREED. But that list needs to be overseen carefully and cautiously. "Lists" can be a slippery slope. Sure they can, but in hindsight we can see that the FBI was overly cautious in not crimping Omar's rights, fucking Omar should have been on a list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 It's all over the political commentary shows this morning. Republicans are not happy about Trump. I highly doubt they will ever allow a non party bootlicker to run as a Republican. They are fucked this election. They have no chance. Now... if they run another candidate then I think Bernie should run. Then we would have a pretty even field. It's unlikely Hillary would win in that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Anler said: It's all over the political commentary shows this morning. Republicans are not happy about Trump. I highly doubt they will ever allow a non party bootlicker to run as a Republican. They are fucked this election. They have no chance. Now... if they run another candidate then I think Bernie should run. Then we would have a pretty even field. It's unlikely Hillary would win in that situation. The Republicans have been riding their "religious wave" toward the rocks for years. And their stand off with common sense is what has put the Dems on top. Now, the Dems are no better, they've set an agenda that set Trump as THE figurehead metaphor for Americans who have had about enough of the boisterous minority bullshit fed into their living rooms for years. Again, whoever takes this election has some tough work to minimize our divide as a nation. I think we are about as divided as we are gonna get before this starts to become real nasty. And a tipping point could very well be during an anti-trump rally where shinanigans seem to be going overlooked on purpose. Edited June 19, 2016 by Zambroski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 If you want to remove someones constitutional rights there better be a fucking court involved. The federal government is the least trustworthy entity in existence and fucks stuff up worse that possible at every step. Also there better be an airtight system for easily pleading your case for removal from the list. This bullshit has abuse and lawyers wet dream written all over it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Also if someone isnt fit to fly then they are not fit to drive a car or any other myriad of potentially catastrophic activities that are not even rights. Leave it to fucking ballsack to get in line and focus on the idiotic talking points though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 22 minutes ago, f7ben said: If you want to remove someones constitutional rights there better be a fucking court involved. The federal government is the least trustworthy entity in existence and fucks stuff up worse that possible at every step. Also there better be an airtight system for easily pleading your case for removal from the list. This bullshit has abuse and lawyers wet dream written all over it You always forget, If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Common sense says that of you under investigation by the FBI you should be running for president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 26 minutes ago, f7ben said: Also if someone isnt fit to fly then they are not fit to drive a car or any other myriad of potentially catastrophic activities that are not even rights. Leave it to fucking ballsack to get in line and focus on the idiotic talking points though Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticWolf 24 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 A well regulated militia...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 yes .....the key part of that is "being necessary for" .....there cant be a well regulated militia unless the citizens are well armed ....hence the following the RIGHT of the the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS ....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED the intention was for the people to have the ultimate power in fighting a tyrannical government .....the founders were brilliant and this amendment shows it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 36 minutes ago, f7ben said: yes .....the key part of that is "being necessary for" .....there cant be a well regulated militia unless the citizens are well armed ....hence the following the RIGHT of the the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS ....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED the intention was for the people to have the ultimate power in fighting a tyrannical government .....the founders were brilliant and this amendment shows it Safety is a issue though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Mainecat said: Safety is a issue though. I agee and I am more than willing to have various qualifications attached to ownership of certain arms. I think with the case of weapons that can do a significant amount of damage in short order a stringent certification might be appropriate. That said I think that if we give on that issue then we should be able to be certified more easily for ownership of other deadly weapons that are not currently allowed Edited June 20, 2016 by f7ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebsell Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 12 minutes ago, f7ben said: . That said I think that if we give on that issue then we should be able to be certified more easily for ownership of other deadly weapons that are not currently allowed Like what exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 14 minutes ago, Ebsell said: Like what exactly fully automatic weapons , suppressors in all states , small explosive ordinance etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I feel the populace should be armed with every light armament that the national guard has Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 12 minutes ago, f7ben said: I feel the populace should be armed with every light armament that the national guard has We pretty much can be. But it all cost money...a lot of money. And the permits for class 3 weaponry aren't cheap either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Just now, Zambroski said: We pretty much can be. But it all cost money...a lot of money. And the permits for class 3 weaponry aren't cheap either. yah ...its pretty restrictive and not a lot of those weapons make it to the hands of responsible people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 1 minute ago, f7ben said: yah ...its pretty restrictive and not a lot of those weapons make it to the hands of responsible people Agreed. Such a itty-bitty, tiny number of murders are done with any "assault" type weapon anyway. And the ones blowing $1000 bucks on permits and $4-5k on the weapons are not the ones doing the "perpetrating". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Mainecat said: Safety is a issue though. Please show where that is in the constitution? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebsell Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 52 minutes ago, f7ben said: fully automatic weapons , suppressors in all states , small explosive ordinance etc etc Nice fishing but I ain't biting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.