SABRES 0311 Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 24 minutes ago, SwampD said: Not to call BS, but when is the last time a US citizen used that number of rounds to defend themself and “win”? Seems to me like the larger the magazines, the more innocents are killed by crazies. If there’s a study proving otherwise, I’d like to see it. Hey I never said you need to agree. I’m keeping what I have and know how to use responsibly. You can do what you want.
SwampD Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 6 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said: Hey I never said you need to agree. I’m keeping what I have and know how to use responsibly. You can do what you want. People who are responsible are always paying the price for idiots. Welcome to the world.
SABRES 0311 Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, SwampD said: People who are responsible are always paying the price for idiots. Welcome to the world. Well I haven’t paid a price yet. Correction. I have submitted to Japanese and U.S. laws by not bringing whatever weapon(s) I have into Japan. Edited June 5, 2019 by SABRES 0311
Weave Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 8 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: I’ll stick with 15 in the mag and one in the chamber. The reality is those who are prepared win. I get that you want to be prepared for any situation, but in light of what has been happening due to the availability of 15, 20, 30 rd magazines, it comes off as very selfish. Especially when 99.9% of your needs can be met with 7 rds.
SABRES 0311 Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 36 minutes ago, Weave said: I get that you want to be prepared for any situation, but in light of what has been happening due to the availability of 15, 20, 30 rd magazines, it comes off as very selfish. Especially when 99.9% of your needs can be met with 7 rds. I appreciate your confidence in my marksmanship capabilities against potentially multiple moving targets while under stress. Call me selfish all you want. You don’t know me anymore than I know you. You are probably right in one sense though and I’ll accept it.
LGR4GM Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: I think you should be required to attend formal training and I support a criminal background check. So the question is where do we draw the line on gun restrictions? As with guns I support voter ID laws. That doesn't mean I support everything but you should have to prove you are a U.S. citizen. I would think a drivers license could do that but I don't know every states requirements for issuing a license. If you had to prove your citizenship prior to issue it should be accepted. Maybe states could issue state IDs like the military does for its personnel and their dependents. This would at least cover those people who do not or cannot obtain a drivers license. Bottom line is there should be laws that ensure your rights are protected while also protecting against criminal behavior. Okay, perfect. We have a baseline. What's the baseline on an ID? How do you get one? Who pays the cost? Where is the office for it? Is it mailed to you? What ID do you have to provide to get the id card? What if I am poor? What if the state refuses to issue my ID card because of "direct match policy"? What if I am illiterate and cannot write? What if I am old and need a new card? Does the card expire? What information is on it? I am 100% less worried about an illegal immigrant registering to vote, showing up to vote than I am about going to my voting place and being shot because that is more likely. Voting is a more important right than owning a gun and yet we are doing more to restrict voting rights with less evidence and less thought put into the concept. Edited June 5, 2019 by LGR4GM
SABRES 0311 Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said: Okay, perfect. We have a baseline. What's the baseline on an ID? How do you get one? Who pays the cost? Where is the office for it? Is it mailed to you? What ID do you have to provide to get the id card? What if I am poor? What if the state refuses to issue my ID card because of "direct match policy"? What if I am illiterate and cannot write? What if I am old and need a new card? Does the card expire? What information is on it? I am 100% less worried about an illegal immigrant registering to vote, showing up to vote than I am about going to my voting place and being shot because that is more likely. Voting is a more important right than owning a gun and yet we are doing more to restrict voting rights with less evidence and less thought put into the concept. I dunno. I would guess those answers would come from a state legislature. What’s your plan? Thats cool if you value voting more than owning a gun. I’d say they are equally important.
LGR4GM Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 50 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said: I dunno. I would guess those answers would come from a state legislature. What’s your plan? Thats cool if you value voting more than owning a gun. I’d say they are equally important. You want to leave it up to state legislatures? I will remind you that in 1964, not even that long ago state legislatures were incapable of fair voting laws.
SABRES 0311 Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said: You want to leave it up to state legislatures? I will remind you that in 1964, not even that long ago state legislatures were incapable of fair voting laws. Then who do you think should decide and what do you think the answer is?
LGR4GM Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 10 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said: Then who do you think should decide and what do you think the answer is? The federal government. 1 voter law for everyone that is simple and easy. Also you shouldn't have to register to vote. You should be automatically enrolled. Also there can be no direct cost for any id card, it must be free and easy enough to obtain on the day of voting if need be. If we can't have common sense gun laws, we sure as hell can't have voter id laws.
SABRES 0311 Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 5 hours ago, LGR4GM said: The federal government. 1 voter law for everyone that is simple and easy. Also you shouldn't have to register to vote. You should be automatically enrolled. Also there can be no direct cost for any id card, it must be free and easy enough to obtain on the day of voting if need be. If we can't have common sense gun laws, we sure as hell can't have voter id laws. So you have an issue with multiple states’ voter laws and/or their initiatives. Since you can’t do anything about it because you are not a resident of those states you want the federal government to step in and take care of it for you. You want the same organization who didn’t do anything about Russian interference to have even more say in how things go for voting. I don’t know if you have noticed but the government is historically unreliable on voting rights and security. What I really don’t understand is why people are all about more federal laws. If you don’t like what is happening in your state then convince your state to change its laws. If it’s not your state then let the residents there figure out what works for them. Take gun laws for example. People don’t like 15 and 30 round mags because of mass shootings. They want DC to save the day and pass more laws. Well if those laws work for your state it’s great. What if those laws don’t sit too well in another? Prople don’t agree with what a state they don’t live in is doing on voting rights so they want someone to make it right in their eyes. Better run the government to make me feel better.
Weave Posted June 5, 2019 Report Posted June 5, 2019 1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said: So you have an issue with multiple states’ voter laws and/or their initiatives. Since you can’t do anything about it because you are not a resident of those states you want the federal government to step in and take care of it for you. You want the same organization who didn’t do anything about Russian interference to have even more say in how things go for voting. I don’t know if you have noticed but the government is historically unreliable on voting rights and security. What I really don’t understand is why people are all about more federal laws. If you don’t like what is happening in your state then convince your state to change its laws. If it’s not your state then let the residents there figure out what works for them. Take gun laws for example. People don’t like 15 and 30 round mags because of mass shootings. They want DC to save the day and pass more laws. Well if those laws work for your state it’s great. What if those laws don’t sit too well in another? Prople don’t agree with what a state they don’t live in is doing on voting rights so they want someone to make it right in their eyes. Better run the government to make me feel better. Voter access has national implications. You bet I want a universal standard for who gets to vote. And the firearm laws in South Carolina affect the violent crime in Michigan, so I think there needs to be a standard there as well. If we can regulate health care, and keep a farmer from growing wheat to feed his own livestock both under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, then certainly we can create a common set of rules for something that has as much actual interstate effect as firearms. If firearm violence was predominately an issue involving firearms sourced within the state affected I'd feel differently. But it's a pretty well established fact that huge numbers of firearms are being moved across state lines for the purpose of illegal distribution.
SABRES 0311 Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 1 hour ago, Weave said: Voter access has national implications. You bet I want a universal standard for who gets to vote. And the firearm laws in South Carolina affect the violent crime in Michigan, so I think there needs to be a standard there as well. If we can regulate health care, and keep a farmer from growing wheat to feed his own livestock both under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, then certainly we can create a common set of rules for something that has as much actual interstate effect as firearms. If firearm violence was predominately an issue involving firearms sourced within the state affected I'd feel differently. But it's a pretty well established fact that huge numbers of firearms are being moved across state lines for the purpose of illegal distribution. I agree illegal transfers are a huge factor in gun related violent crimes.
Eleven Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said: I agree illegal transfers are a huge factor in gun related violent crimes. Ok, so, because we do not and cannot have border checks at state lines, what would you propose?
SABRES 0311 Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Eleven said: Ok, so, because we do not and cannot have border checks at state lines, what would you propose? A lot of SJWs blocking traffic at state lines. ANTIFA can force people to consent to searches by using all the buzzwords like bigot, racist, fascist, and homophobe. I dunno how you stop illegal transfers. Do I look like LE to you? How do you think it should be done?
Eleven Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said: A lot of SJWs blocking traffic at state lines. ANTIFA can force people to consent to searches by using all the buzzwords like bigot, racist, fascist, and homophobe. I dunno how you stop illegal transfers. Do I look like LE to you? How do you think it should be done? As to the bolded, what in the world are you talking about? This doesn't happen in the US. Antifa isn't even a presence here. It's barely even a presence anywhere. As to your second sentence, all I asked was a question. What would you propose, since you're against federal legislation, and the states cannot do this at their borders? And on edit, I'm going to add: We're not going to deal with fake news here. Either substantiate your first sentence with real, mainstream media (Fox and WSJ are ok, Alex Jones is not) or your comment and my reply will be deleted. I want to see reliable reports that "Antifa" is conducting state border searches using the buzzwords "bigot, racist, fascist, and homophobe." You dig? Edited June 6, 2019 by Eleven
SABRES 0311 Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 22 minutes ago, Eleven said: As to the bolded, what in the world are you talking about? This doesn't happen in the US. Antifa isn't even a presence here. It's barely even a presence anywhere. As to your second sentence, all I asked was a question. What would you propose, since you're against federal legislation, and the states cannot do this at their borders? And on edit, I'm going to add: We're not going to deal with fake news here. Either substantiate your first sentence with real, mainstream media (Fox and WSJ are ok, Alex Jones is not) or your comment and my reply will be deleted. I want to see reliable reports that "Antifa" is conducting state border searches using the buzzwords "bigot, racist, fascist, and homophobe." You dig? It was a joke. But there are plenty of videos of ANTIFA using those words to shout people down they don't agree with. You can delete what you want. In case I’m not understanding or digging I will be in WNY by 10 July. As this is the second time you have gone that route with me maybe I need an in person explanation.
drnkirishone Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 3 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: It was a joke. But there are plenty of videos of ANTIFA using those words to shout people down they don't agree with. You can delete what you want. In case I’m not understanding or digging I will be in WNY by 10 July. As this is the second time you have gone that route with me maybe I need an in person explanation. I want to believe that the way i read the post is not the way it was intended. But like Scully I think I will remain skeptical.
SABRES 0311 Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 1 hour ago, drnkirishone said: I want to believe that the way i read the post is not the way it was intended. But like Scully I think I will remain skeptical. I’ve said a few times I respect someone else’s differing opinion or even admitted to agreeing with them. In this instance I agreed with someone on a topic where on other aspects we did not. As soon as he saw a little bit of two sides building a commonality he jumps in. Then when I make a clear joke in response to a question I cannot answer he gives a dbag response. He has asked on two occasions if I understand his directions as those he is some moral authority with superior ideology in life. Apparently I do not so if the opportunity is there for him to better explain why would I deny that opportunity. I don’t know how you took it.
SwampD Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 4 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: I’ve said a few times I respect someone else’s differing opinion or even admitted to agreeing with them. In this instance I agreed with someone on a topic where on other aspects we did not. As soon as he saw a little bit of two sides building a commonality he jumps in. Then when I make a clear joke in response to a question I cannot answer he gives a dbag response. He has asked on two occasions if I understand his directions as those he is some moral authority with superior ideology in life. Apparently I do not so if the opportunity is there for him to better explain why would I deny that opportunity. I don’t know how you took it. I thought eleven was merely asking a question on what you thought. It’s kinda the point of this place. I didn’t realize you were making a joke either.
Weave Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 This is what happens when hyperbole is used in a conversation involving tightly held beliefs.
Eleven Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 13 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: It was a joke. But there are plenty of videos of ANTIFA using those words to shout people down they don't agree with. You can delete what you want. In case I’m not understanding or digging I will be in WNY by 10 July. As this is the second time you have gone that route with me maybe I need an in person explanation. Yeah, that really didn't seem like a joke, to me, or, apparently, to anyone else here. Happy to have a drink with you in July if you'd like.
5th line wingnutt Posted June 6, 2019 Author Report Posted June 6, 2019 I offer my deepest condolences to @Eleven on the death of his sense of humor.
Eleven Posted June 6, 2019 Report Posted June 6, 2019 4 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said: I offer my deepest condolences to @Eleven on the death of his sense of humor. It wasn't a joke. He was trying to pass off BS as real life. I think we all know that now. It's a well-known far-right tactic, kind of like "they're gonna take my guns!" (see above). If he wants to pass it off as a joke, fine for the time being. But no one saw it that way.
5th line wingnutt Posted June 6, 2019 Author Report Posted June 6, 2019 13 minutes ago, Eleven said: It wasn't a joke. He was trying to pass off BS as real life. I think we all know that now. It's a well-known far-right tactic, kind of like "they're gonna take my guns!" (see above). If he wants to pass it off as a joke, fine for the time being. But no one saw it that way. You missed my point. I saw it as a joke.
Recommended Posts