9
-11
20
Posted in these groups: 
Election 2016
Donald Trump
Election 2016 Donald Trump
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 87
41
41
0
Walt, you need help. None of the comments you have mentioned rise to treason. Trump is in no position of power or authority. His comments are his opinions just like everyone on this forum. If you don't like them, don't vote for him and move on. You look like a loon posting things like this.
He is allowed to poke any beast he likes under the first amendment. There is nothing, zero that rises to the level of treason and you ought to know that. You are simply following the left's playbook in trying to shut down any voice you do not like.
If you don't like what he says, post counter arguments and positions, encourage you friends/family to steer away. To attempt to play the treason card is simply juvenile.
He is allowed to poke any beast he likes under the first amendment. There is nothing, zero that rises to the level of treason and you ought to know that. You are simply following the left's playbook in trying to shut down any voice you do not like.
If you don't like what he says, post counter arguments and positions, encourage you friends/family to steer away. To attempt to play the treason card is simply juvenile.
(41)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Cpl Jeff N. - "You seem unable to countenance someone with a different world view than you. "
I am kind of against treason.
Sometimes I can see both sides of an argument, but on RP that is not often an issue.
Walt
I am kind of against treason.
Sometimes I can see both sides of an argument, but on RP that is not often an issue.
Walt
(2)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Capt Walter Miller . I will say it one more time and then leave it alone. You've offered nothing that amounts to treason, only something that amounts to severe disagreement. You seem to be of the mindset that if you say something enough times you will get people to believe it. That might work with the weak of mind. It will not work here. Put up the Treason charges you would have someone file. What are the specifically and where would you have them filed and by whom? Put up or shut up.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
25
25
0
Walt with all due respect. You are way off on this one and your statements are very dangerous. Attempting to tie someone's protected first amendment right to treason is a VERY slippery slope. What you suggest amounts to the destruction of liberty and tramples on the very document we all swore to defend.
Also using Ad Hominem attacks basically tells everyone that you can't win the argument based on message alone. So your argument is weak and not really well supported.
As far as those on the watch list being prohibited from buying firearms, I strongly oppose this idea as things currently are. The decision to place someone on the no fly list is a unilateral decision that does not go through a court. Sure there is a redress process, but any infringement on a right without a trial by jury is strictly prohibited and unconstitutional on the basis of the 5th and 14th amendments. Furthermore, the Farook and his wife weren't on the watch list to begin with. They had no criminal record nor were they deemed a threat based on mental health. So as you can see, no background check in the world will stop someone who hadn't done anything up to that point. I would also like to point out that they were stopped by people with guns.
As for your claims of gerrymandering, I do not have the numbers nor the time to look it up so I will refrain from discussing that for the time being. If I get time later I will look it up comment.
I get what you are trying to say, I do. I just think that instead of being divisive and lashing out with personal attacks it would be more productive to come up with a compromise measure that doesn't trample on the very thing we all swore to protect or drive the wedge further between both sides. We need to remember that when we stop talking, stop cooperating and stop compromising the repercussions are something none of us want to see. The last time that occurred, the result was 600K dead Americans and countless others wounded. Just something to think about. As for me I hope we NEVER get to that point again.
Also using Ad Hominem attacks basically tells everyone that you can't win the argument based on message alone. So your argument is weak and not really well supported.
As far as those on the watch list being prohibited from buying firearms, I strongly oppose this idea as things currently are. The decision to place someone on the no fly list is a unilateral decision that does not go through a court. Sure there is a redress process, but any infringement on a right without a trial by jury is strictly prohibited and unconstitutional on the basis of the 5th and 14th amendments. Furthermore, the Farook and his wife weren't on the watch list to begin with. They had no criminal record nor were they deemed a threat based on mental health. So as you can see, no background check in the world will stop someone who hadn't done anything up to that point. I would also like to point out that they were stopped by people with guns.
As for your claims of gerrymandering, I do not have the numbers nor the time to look it up so I will refrain from discussing that for the time being. If I get time later I will look it up comment.
I get what you are trying to say, I do. I just think that instead of being divisive and lashing out with personal attacks it would be more productive to come up with a compromise measure that doesn't trample on the very thing we all swore to protect or drive the wedge further between both sides. We need to remember that when we stop talking, stop cooperating and stop compromising the repercussions are something none of us want to see. The last time that occurred, the result was 600K dead Americans and countless others wounded. Just something to think about. As for me I hope we NEVER get to that point again.
(25)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
David. Your up against the play book of the Left. They ALWAYS try to take Free Speech away when it comes from a person that doesn't fit or agree with there political agenda. The left doesn't debate. They shout anyone down that has a different opinion than there's. Have you ever watched Al Sharpton on MSNBC? He never ever had a person on his show that presented the other side. If you didn't agree with him 100% he just didn't have you on as a guest. That is censorship in my book.
(3)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I try not to block. Cant say that about everyone. I do however block a person that just goes to whatever you say to vote it down simply because they think that's fun. As for shouting people down. I am sorry to say I feel like that happens way too often. Not so much here because we all have a common thread in our service but when I watch MSNBC I see them never invite a person that doesn't agree with there points on the show. To me that's censorship. But take a look at the main part of this thread. Can you seriously say that Trump committed Treason? Really? that's proof that the person that started this line wants to shut the mouth of a person he doesn't agree with. I don't agree with Trump but I swore an oath to protect his right to say what he said. I don't like the things the left says about touchy subjects but I don't call it treason or tell them they cant have there opinion. Lets take gun control as an example. Do you or anyone else really believe making it harder for a law abiding person to get a gun will reduce the murder rate in Chicago? Or stop a terrorist? Fact is gun free zones get people killed because they are soft targets. Here is another question for you when it comes to freedom of speech. When Black Lives Matter calls for the killing of cops should they be arrested? or when a cop dies be prosecuted for murder? The left has selected memory loss. They forget quickly about all the bad things they said about Bush yet one bad word be said about Obama and they want the person burned at the stake and he or she is branded a Bigot or racist when in fact they just don't agree with him. That is true and you know it.
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Wally, ISIS was created out of the vacuum left when Obama prematurely pulled out our troops in Iraq -- against the better judgment of his generals, which he fired for disagreeing with him. Over 200 of our best senior officers have had their careers cut short because they had the balls to speak the truth. They warned about the growing threat and Obama did nothing. He called "ISIL" the JV team. Was Obama's lack of action intentional because his campaign promise was more important to him than our National Security? He simply couldn't admit that the war in Iraq was not over. It didn't fit his narrative.
The Arab Spring, which Obama had his hand in, also is in part responsible for the creation of ISIS. What were we doing in Libya when we lost our Ambassador? Can you answer that honestly? I doubt it because we STILL don't have the information that Congressman Trey Gowdy requested from Hillary... < Information that would be incriminating to the Administration and expose their bypassing Congress to conduct their own foreign policy -- covertly.
You obsess over Trump's statement about not letting Muslims into this country until we can figure out how to vet them and call that a great recruiting tool for Muslims. Did you forget that Jimmy Carter stopped immigration from Iran during the hostage crisis? Perhaps you are just exercising your right to liberal double standards. Truth be told, Obama's weak foreign policy and covert aid to Muslim rebels has been the greatest recruiting tool for the Islamic State AND! As a gesture of their gratitude, they have threatened attacks on U.S. soil (which they made good on) and declared that they will plant their black flag at the White House. Thanks to Obama, our Allies don't trust us and our enemies no longer fear us.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Obama about backing the Al Qaeda linked Syrian rebels (a few of which who also happen to have a liking for eating the hearts of the Syrian gov't soldiers they kill). He even asked us to not get involved because our record of destabilizing governments which then got replaced with worse ones was not a very good one. We are on the wrong side in Syria and missed a great opportunity to cement ties with the Russians. Russia exposed Obama and Turkey, who are covertly supporting the Islamic State, but apparently you don't let facts uncloud your poor judgment.
The Arab Spring, which Obama had his hand in, also is in part responsible for the creation of ISIS. What were we doing in Libya when we lost our Ambassador? Can you answer that honestly? I doubt it because we STILL don't have the information that Congressman Trey Gowdy requested from Hillary... < Information that would be incriminating to the Administration and expose their bypassing Congress to conduct their own foreign policy -- covertly.
You obsess over Trump's statement about not letting Muslims into this country until we can figure out how to vet them and call that a great recruiting tool for Muslims. Did you forget that Jimmy Carter stopped immigration from Iran during the hostage crisis? Perhaps you are just exercising your right to liberal double standards. Truth be told, Obama's weak foreign policy and covert aid to Muslim rebels has been the greatest recruiting tool for the Islamic State AND! As a gesture of their gratitude, they have threatened attacks on U.S. soil (which they made good on) and declared that they will plant their black flag at the White House. Thanks to Obama, our Allies don't trust us and our enemies no longer fear us.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Obama about backing the Al Qaeda linked Syrian rebels (a few of which who also happen to have a liking for eating the hearts of the Syrian gov't soldiers they kill). He even asked us to not get involved because our record of destabilizing governments which then got replaced with worse ones was not a very good one. We are on the wrong side in Syria and missed a great opportunity to cement ties with the Russians. Russia exposed Obama and Turkey, who are covertly supporting the Islamic State, but apparently you don't let facts uncloud your poor judgment.
(2)
(0)
14
14
0
12
12
0
Walter you are way off with your assessment. Obviously you do not know our history or you were too young to remember. In 1979 President Jimmy Carter banned the immigration of Iranians and called for the deportation of those who were here on a Visa. But, this does not fit into the Democrats rhetoric right now, so they say nothing about it.
(12)
(0)
PO3 Michael Cardinale
SGM Thomas Brooks, I agree with you, the current system has flaws I won't deny that, but multiple countries including ours hold refugees to a higher standard of vetting background checks included. The whole process to vet a refugee lasts approximately 18-24 months, the problem I've noticed is the vetting of student visas and fiancé visas. I think that the FBI and Homeland security should intensify the background checks for those visas as well as the pathway to citizenship for others seeking to call the US their home.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
PO3 Michael Cardinale, I dislike the idea of racial profiling, however accurate it might be. But if we aren't going to do racial profiling, then we need to seriously step up the investigations of anyone who wants in the U.S. I agree with you completely.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
The question is quite inflammatory, but the answer is easy. No. Treason is a serious charge. To propose a policy when you have no authority to enact policy is what candidates do. It carries no weight and becomes nothing. It aids no one, and harms no one (except maybe the candidate him/herself), until the policy comes into effect. If anti-Islamic rhetoric is now automatically treason, then you have already made the leap that we are at war with Islam. You have defined the enemy he is providing "aid and comfort to" as the very Muslims he wants to prevent coming here.
(10)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
PO1 (Join to see) - This is one of the fine statement here. But the supporter of such ban won't consider anything from your viewpoint. It just like gun control guys will never accept pro-gun guy's words. They are behaving just like those that they claim are "bad" people.
I can see the public sentiment in WW2 when we turn away a ship full of Jews, 100% knowing that every single one of them will be killed, how do I see it? look at how American behave now!
Like I stated, for them ... only American Lives matter ... for me.... ALL lives matter. They become selfish in the sense of trying to secure their own sense of security.
Yes, we can no longer keep our door open wide unchecked, but we can't shut it completely too. That is all I am trying to remind them ... they verbally attacked me ... but I was one of them ... until I am "not" one for them. :) lol
It is so funny that I actually need to argue with my own side lately...
I can see the public sentiment in WW2 when we turn away a ship full of Jews, 100% knowing that every single one of them will be killed, how do I see it? look at how American behave now!
Like I stated, for them ... only American Lives matter ... for me.... ALL lives matter. They become selfish in the sense of trying to secure their own sense of security.
Yes, we can no longer keep our door open wide unchecked, but we can't shut it completely too. That is all I am trying to remind them ... they verbally attacked me ... but I was one of them ... until I am "not" one for them. :) lol
It is so funny that I actually need to argue with my own side lately...
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
PO1 (Join to see) - That's not what Trump said. His statements excluded Heads of State and those whom we do business with, that have been vetted.
(1)
(0)
SPC Les Darbison
Capt Jeff S. - I guess those that only watch fake news don't know or accept your info. Thanks for putting a will know fact out there!
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
Capt Walter Miller
I think you'll be hard pressed to find where those of us on the pro-Second Amendment side say that there should be no background check to purchase a weapon.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find where those of us on the pro-Second Amendment side say that there should be no background check to purchase a weapon.
(10)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. You can pretend that a "fluid perspective" isn't disrespectful, but comparing Yosimite Sam to armed citizens saving lives, as in Garland, Texas is disrespectful. And anyway, it's my fluid perspective, that if you can disparage me, then you have no right to complain if I disparage you back. Don't whine about it. You can learn from it or you can continue the way you have been and think it's everyone else's fault that they think you are a nasty, childish, complainer with a tendency to blame others for your lack of ability to communicate in a respectful manner.
You ought to know that Europeans count statistics differently. A crime is counted only if someone is found guilty in court in most European countries.
And you ought to know that 1993 was the high point for homicides in the U.S., and it's down about 75% from there. But let's take your stats anyway. Family and friends ... and where did they get the gun that went to the criminal? So let's make it 78.8% from illegal sources. And then let's recognize that the statistic is based on state inmates. What about the criminals who are killed in a shootout? It's reasonable to assume that the more violent the criminal has been and the more he will be charged with, the more likely he will want to shoot it out than surrender and go to prison. So the more successful you are as a criminal, the more likely you can afford a black market gun, and the more likely you are to try and shoot it out.
Incidentally, I'm not particularly keen on open carry. I think concealed carry is acceptable. I'd rather keep the criminals wondering if his next victim might be armed or not. Do you know that the year Florida passed concealed carry, vehicle hijackings dropped 8%?
Look, you can believe whatever you want to. I don't have a mission to save people from self-delusion, nor am I interested in educating people who don't have an open mind.
Garland was a stunt? OK, I guess that's one way for someone who resents something that doesn't meet his standards to dismiss it. What about Major Abu Nidal at Fort Hood, Texas? He killed 13 people before someone shot him down. Was that a stunt?
And I actually agree with one of your points. I would rather have a policeman there to protect the citizens than depending on an armed citizen. But as the old saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." But that's also the difference between us. You say you would rather, but you want to force me to agree to what you would rather. I don't attempt to force you to accept my way. And that's all that needs to be said - freedom versus being told what I have to accept.
You are welcome to meddle. That's what Liberals do. I was just wondering if you'd admit it. Liberals are always concerned with someone wants to think for themselves.
You ought to know that Europeans count statistics differently. A crime is counted only if someone is found guilty in court in most European countries.
And you ought to know that 1993 was the high point for homicides in the U.S., and it's down about 75% from there. But let's take your stats anyway. Family and friends ... and where did they get the gun that went to the criminal? So let's make it 78.8% from illegal sources. And then let's recognize that the statistic is based on state inmates. What about the criminals who are killed in a shootout? It's reasonable to assume that the more violent the criminal has been and the more he will be charged with, the more likely he will want to shoot it out than surrender and go to prison. So the more successful you are as a criminal, the more likely you can afford a black market gun, and the more likely you are to try and shoot it out.
Incidentally, I'm not particularly keen on open carry. I think concealed carry is acceptable. I'd rather keep the criminals wondering if his next victim might be armed or not. Do you know that the year Florida passed concealed carry, vehicle hijackings dropped 8%?
Look, you can believe whatever you want to. I don't have a mission to save people from self-delusion, nor am I interested in educating people who don't have an open mind.
Garland was a stunt? OK, I guess that's one way for someone who resents something that doesn't meet his standards to dismiss it. What about Major Abu Nidal at Fort Hood, Texas? He killed 13 people before someone shot him down. Was that a stunt?
And I actually agree with one of your points. I would rather have a policeman there to protect the citizens than depending on an armed citizen. But as the old saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." But that's also the difference between us. You say you would rather, but you want to force me to agree to what you would rather. I don't attempt to force you to accept my way. And that's all that needs to be said - freedom versus being told what I have to accept.
You are welcome to meddle. That's what Liberals do. I was just wondering if you'd admit it. Liberals are always concerned with someone wants to think for themselves.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. You can claim what you wish, but if you didn't have a comprehension problem understanding that "illegally firearm" meant smuggled into the US in addition to just stolen, then you are deliberately misreading what I wrote for entertainment purposes. Be that as it may. If I didn't find it amusing to poke holes in your arguments, I wouldn't waste my time.
"So....statisics vary." Yes, they do and it's easy to lie with statistics, which is why I don't trust them. Mine or yours, but especially yours because they are cooked to back up your perspective.
"Now before you blow a gasket" Not about customs. I'm too busy laughing my ass off. I can't believe you can say something so idiotic. Just how much success has customs had interdicting drugs? But somehow, just because you say so, they are going to have much more success in stopping guns. Why don't you concentrate on that, and when you have customs under control and have stopped the illegal gun black market, we can revisit this topic and see if it needs anything more.
Pretend all you want. It seemed to bother you that people other than me have found your "discussion" style to be laced with innuendo, childishness, fantasy, feelings, emotionalism, and a lack of willingness to consider anyone else's position. But you don't have to worry about me. I find it fun to poke holes in your self-absorption. I find it amusing to point out where "feelings" conflict with facts. I find it down right satisfying to show how people like you expect everyone else to adapt to what you think, as if you were some tin pot dictator. So by all means, let's continue. You aren't convincing anyone, and I doubt anyone is going to read through more than a few of our back and forth messages.
"So....statisics vary." Yes, they do and it's easy to lie with statistics, which is why I don't trust them. Mine or yours, but especially yours because they are cooked to back up your perspective.
"Now before you blow a gasket" Not about customs. I'm too busy laughing my ass off. I can't believe you can say something so idiotic. Just how much success has customs had interdicting drugs? But somehow, just because you say so, they are going to have much more success in stopping guns. Why don't you concentrate on that, and when you have customs under control and have stopped the illegal gun black market, we can revisit this topic and see if it needs anything more.
Pretend all you want. It seemed to bother you that people other than me have found your "discussion" style to be laced with innuendo, childishness, fantasy, feelings, emotionalism, and a lack of willingness to consider anyone else's position. But you don't have to worry about me. I find it fun to poke holes in your self-absorption. I find it amusing to point out where "feelings" conflict with facts. I find it down right satisfying to show how people like you expect everyone else to adapt to what you think, as if you were some tin pot dictator. So by all means, let's continue. You aren't convincing anyone, and I doubt anyone is going to read through more than a few of our back and forth messages.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SGT Efaw (Mick) G., it's not surprising to me that when you are being childish, you think it's sarcasm. When I'm holding up a mirror to your childishness, you can't recognize it.
Insulting you is apparently the only way I can get across the point that you deliberately misunderstand, deliberately ridicule people opposed to your position, and deliberately assign motives to people based on what you think, not on what they actually said or believe. You continue it above, with your childish, emotional and demeaning references to "gun folks" as being rigid and treating opposition as heresy. YOU BRING THIS ON YOURSELF, because you are at least as rigid, and totally unwilling to discuss the issue in a manner which acknowledges their opinion is no less valid than yours. And then you have the temerity to WHINE that you are only being sarcastic. Oh your poor misunderstood little child. Send me your mailing address and I'll send you a quarter, so you can call someone who gives a damn.
You can continue to lie about being unemotional, but it's obviously not true. You don't bring any facts, just your opinions, you stated almost a dozen messages ago that we wouldn't be able to come to an agreement, and yet you still feel this emotional need to browbeat me with your silly opinions.
And I think that's the real issue. You THRIVE on trying to create friction by your insults, which aren't veiled by your sarcasm as you think. You then can play the wounded innocent ... "I didn't insult anyone, and they are all raving psychotics can't argue rationally." You aren't fooling me, and anyone who reads this will know that this is just how your get your jollies. Pathetic. I truly feel sorry for you, having so little of a life that you thrive on insults and ill will.
And I know this won't make any difference to you, but just last week there was another example of a citizen using a gun to defend his family. You can look it up. Friday, Jan 1st, a recently released felon, Chevez Antwann Fiason, broke into a couple's home and started firing at them. The homeowner took out his gun, fired a single shot striking the burglar in the head, and killed him instantly. As the old saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
And you actually made a valid point about breaking large problems down into smaller ones, and yet you have only untested suggestions to make about dealing with the various facets (like lack of customs agents) while still demanding that the gun control facet be implemented without further discussion. And my response to the single logical, unemotional, and non-sarcastic idea you presented is fix those other issues first, and then see if something else needs doing. And when you refuse to consider that as an option, you confirm that you are just as "religious' about your opposition anything other than what YOU think is right as you think "gun folks" are. Or just to make it simple for your limited understanding, you cannot claim others are rigid when you are just as rigid.
You can ramble on about the good European tradition of considering society more important than anyone's life. But nothing you can ever say will convince me that I don't have the right to defend my home and family in the same manner as above.
And it's not about religion. It's about civil rights. People from Europe have a lot of trouble with this, but the purpose of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights was to limit our government and remind them that they work for us, not the other way around. The right to bear arms is simply the easiest and least understood manner of reminding the government just who works for whom.
The problem is NOT guns. The problem is CRIMINALS. I see no reason to limit the freedoms of the law-abiding, and do nothing to limit the criminals. And that's all you are for, because you have at no point stated anything that limits the criminals.
Rave on, witless buffoon. You can't get my goat, you aren't going to make me slink off, you are NOT going to be able to cut another notch on your keyboard because you were about to insult me into banning you or not answering. But no, I'm done reading your crap, at least any more than in necessary to recognize what it is. You are repeating your worthless and emotional claims and rigidly insisting that only your way is valid. Whine if you need to. It's amusing to see a theoretically grown man whine because he can't beat someone else down in a "discussion".
Insulting you is apparently the only way I can get across the point that you deliberately misunderstand, deliberately ridicule people opposed to your position, and deliberately assign motives to people based on what you think, not on what they actually said or believe. You continue it above, with your childish, emotional and demeaning references to "gun folks" as being rigid and treating opposition as heresy. YOU BRING THIS ON YOURSELF, because you are at least as rigid, and totally unwilling to discuss the issue in a manner which acknowledges their opinion is no less valid than yours. And then you have the temerity to WHINE that you are only being sarcastic. Oh your poor misunderstood little child. Send me your mailing address and I'll send you a quarter, so you can call someone who gives a damn.
You can continue to lie about being unemotional, but it's obviously not true. You don't bring any facts, just your opinions, you stated almost a dozen messages ago that we wouldn't be able to come to an agreement, and yet you still feel this emotional need to browbeat me with your silly opinions.
And I think that's the real issue. You THRIVE on trying to create friction by your insults, which aren't veiled by your sarcasm as you think. You then can play the wounded innocent ... "I didn't insult anyone, and they are all raving psychotics can't argue rationally." You aren't fooling me, and anyone who reads this will know that this is just how your get your jollies. Pathetic. I truly feel sorry for you, having so little of a life that you thrive on insults and ill will.
And I know this won't make any difference to you, but just last week there was another example of a citizen using a gun to defend his family. You can look it up. Friday, Jan 1st, a recently released felon, Chevez Antwann Fiason, broke into a couple's home and started firing at them. The homeowner took out his gun, fired a single shot striking the burglar in the head, and killed him instantly. As the old saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
And you actually made a valid point about breaking large problems down into smaller ones, and yet you have only untested suggestions to make about dealing with the various facets (like lack of customs agents) while still demanding that the gun control facet be implemented without further discussion. And my response to the single logical, unemotional, and non-sarcastic idea you presented is fix those other issues first, and then see if something else needs doing. And when you refuse to consider that as an option, you confirm that you are just as "religious' about your opposition anything other than what YOU think is right as you think "gun folks" are. Or just to make it simple for your limited understanding, you cannot claim others are rigid when you are just as rigid.
You can ramble on about the good European tradition of considering society more important than anyone's life. But nothing you can ever say will convince me that I don't have the right to defend my home and family in the same manner as above.
And it's not about religion. It's about civil rights. People from Europe have a lot of trouble with this, but the purpose of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights was to limit our government and remind them that they work for us, not the other way around. The right to bear arms is simply the easiest and least understood manner of reminding the government just who works for whom.
The problem is NOT guns. The problem is CRIMINALS. I see no reason to limit the freedoms of the law-abiding, and do nothing to limit the criminals. And that's all you are for, because you have at no point stated anything that limits the criminals.
Rave on, witless buffoon. You can't get my goat, you aren't going to make me slink off, you are NOT going to be able to cut another notch on your keyboard because you were about to insult me into banning you or not answering. But no, I'm done reading your crap, at least any more than in necessary to recognize what it is. You are repeating your worthless and emotional claims and rigidly insisting that only your way is valid. Whine if you need to. It's amusing to see a theoretically grown man whine because he can't beat someone else down in a "discussion".
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
No. It's a lot more complicated than that, but it's a start. And it's interesting to see that you really can make an unemotional statement about things you don't agree with, without trying to demean or disparage the person your are talking to. Practice it, and you might have better success in future discussions.
Society has a plethora of problems, which present themselves in numerous symptoms. Curing a symptom does not cure the problem.
Morality is a problem. (Not religious morality, but basic human acceptance of responsibility for the consequences of your actions.) A symptom of this problem is that up to 70% of black children born in the US are born to single mothers, and have about 4 times the likelihood of living in poverty as other children. (That's ONE symptom. This symptom exists to a lesser degree with children born to other races.)
Socialism is a problem. (I mean doctrinal socialism, the concept that the needs and rights of society outweigh the needs and rights of the individuals, as opposed to the form of government in China.) A symptom of this problem is that it breeds a ruling class which doesn't adhere to whatever rules it expects the populace to live under. The examples of this are legion, but Obamacare, which Congressmen and the President don't have to put up with, is an example. Another one is the recent Climate Change summit in Paris. The attendees to the summit have some of the largest personal carbon footprints on the planet. Class envy is a tool that socialists use to exacerbate this problem. The original five Democratic candidates in our upcoming election have a net worth exceeding $86 million, and yet they can still whine about income inequality.
Incidentally, Europe is much farther ahead on this curve, and I personally believe that opposition from Europeans to our rights is at least partially based on envy. Europe has lived too long with a ruling class to change it, so they resent our open, vocal, and lawful opposition to a ruling class.
Another problem, which is exacerbated by class envy, is just garden variety personal envy, i.e. you want a car as new as your neighbors, or a vacation home, or a color TV. One of the many things it stems from is a foundation of our country that all men were created equal. That's obviously untrue, if one is smarter than another, one is taller than another, one is more handsome, or other personal characteristics which make us inherently unequal. Most people believe in equal opportunity, but few believe in equality of effort. Socialists have taken advantage of this through laws which make it hard for poor people to climb out of poverty. Aid is often lost completely if you do anything to improve your situation, which causes a permanent class living on welfare and voting according to which party promises them the most benefits.
Which leads to another problem, entitlement. It basically means I should have things that I'm not willing to exert effort for. It's not a big step from there to get to criminals who seek to take what someone else has.
So gun and self defense rights are really a counter-reaction to socialism, class envy, and entitlement mentality which has produced a class with a criminal mentality. That doesn't mean they will all become criminals, but it does mean people who don't respect anyone else's rights. What is the way to act upon this mentality? To get a gun and act on it by trying to take what you think you are entitled to. And the almost daily reports of successful self defense with a weapon are the expected response to that.
So that's why I think that guns are not the problem. The problem is societal; the solution is responsibility, ethics, and law, and balanced by equal opportunity and actual effort.
Society has a plethora of problems, which present themselves in numerous symptoms. Curing a symptom does not cure the problem.
Morality is a problem. (Not religious morality, but basic human acceptance of responsibility for the consequences of your actions.) A symptom of this problem is that up to 70% of black children born in the US are born to single mothers, and have about 4 times the likelihood of living in poverty as other children. (That's ONE symptom. This symptom exists to a lesser degree with children born to other races.)
Socialism is a problem. (I mean doctrinal socialism, the concept that the needs and rights of society outweigh the needs and rights of the individuals, as opposed to the form of government in China.) A symptom of this problem is that it breeds a ruling class which doesn't adhere to whatever rules it expects the populace to live under. The examples of this are legion, but Obamacare, which Congressmen and the President don't have to put up with, is an example. Another one is the recent Climate Change summit in Paris. The attendees to the summit have some of the largest personal carbon footprints on the planet. Class envy is a tool that socialists use to exacerbate this problem. The original five Democratic candidates in our upcoming election have a net worth exceeding $86 million, and yet they can still whine about income inequality.
Incidentally, Europe is much farther ahead on this curve, and I personally believe that opposition from Europeans to our rights is at least partially based on envy. Europe has lived too long with a ruling class to change it, so they resent our open, vocal, and lawful opposition to a ruling class.
Another problem, which is exacerbated by class envy, is just garden variety personal envy, i.e. you want a car as new as your neighbors, or a vacation home, or a color TV. One of the many things it stems from is a foundation of our country that all men were created equal. That's obviously untrue, if one is smarter than another, one is taller than another, one is more handsome, or other personal characteristics which make us inherently unequal. Most people believe in equal opportunity, but few believe in equality of effort. Socialists have taken advantage of this through laws which make it hard for poor people to climb out of poverty. Aid is often lost completely if you do anything to improve your situation, which causes a permanent class living on welfare and voting according to which party promises them the most benefits.
Which leads to another problem, entitlement. It basically means I should have things that I'm not willing to exert effort for. It's not a big step from there to get to criminals who seek to take what someone else has.
So gun and self defense rights are really a counter-reaction to socialism, class envy, and entitlement mentality which has produced a class with a criminal mentality. That doesn't mean they will all become criminals, but it does mean people who don't respect anyone else's rights. What is the way to act upon this mentality? To get a gun and act on it by trying to take what you think you are entitled to. And the almost daily reports of successful self defense with a weapon are the expected response to that.
So that's why I think that guns are not the problem. The problem is societal; the solution is responsibility, ethics, and law, and balanced by equal opportunity and actual effort.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
After reading some of this, it certainly appears that some think treason is "You disagree with me."
(9)
(0)
7
7
0
Your attempt to frame a response is noted. You are not going to get a valid answer from all of those polled since there isn't a valid answer.
US Constitution
Article. I. Section. 1.
ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (SECTION 1158 OF TITLE 8, U.S. CODE), an alien applying for admission
...must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in SECTION 1101(A)(42)(A) OF TITLE , U.S. CODE) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:
...The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427262/refugee-religious-test-shameful-and-not-american-except-federal-law-requires-it-andrew
US Constitution
Article. I. Section. 1.
ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (SECTION 1158 OF TITLE 8, U.S. CODE), an alien applying for admission
...must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in SECTION 1101(A)(42)(A) OF TITLE , U.S. CODE) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:
...The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427262/refugee-religious-test-shameful-and-not-american-except-federal-law-requires-it-andrew
Refugee ‘Religious Test’ Is ‘Shameful’ and ‘Not American’ … Except that Federal Law Requires It
President Obama sees his principal task as imposing his post-American “progressive” preferences, regardless of what American laws mandate.
(7)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Cpl (Join to see) - I think it's sheepskin. I get Grumpy Cat too when I try to respond to others in posts he created.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Cpl (Join to see), hey welcome to the "I've been blocked by Leo Club". LOL. Many members including Capt Jeff S.. Sgt Richard Buckner, want to join?
(2)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Some folks are only interested in what they have to say... The mouth of a know-it-all is constantly transmitting and the blanking pulse to their receiver during transmit prevents anything from ever being received... Even on those rare occasions when their transmitter goes down for maintenance and you get a chance to respond, they aren't listening; their thoughts are on what they are going to tell you next.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
"Seriously guys, if you think it is okay to have no background checks for people who want to buy AR-15s and AK-47s and you think it is okay for people on the Terror Watch List TO BUY THE SAME"
Couple things here:
1) Nobody's said it's OK for there to be no background checks on ARs and AKs. Which is why there *are* background checks on ARs and AKs. I've passed many of them.
2) You're mixing up the Terror Watch List and the No-Fly List. In either case, someone can be nominated to the watchlist with essentially no due process. Do *you* want to kick open the door to revoking an American's civil liberties without due process? Are you sure?
Those points made, I don't agree with Trump.
Couple things here:
1) Nobody's said it's OK for there to be no background checks on ARs and AKs. Which is why there *are* background checks on ARs and AKs. I've passed many of them.
2) You're mixing up the Terror Watch List and the No-Fly List. In either case, someone can be nominated to the watchlist with essentially no due process. Do *you* want to kick open the door to revoking an American's civil liberties without due process? Are you sure?
Those points made, I don't agree with Trump.
(6)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
no to mention ... those that is not a terrorist that put on the list ... they can't get out of it, or challenge it. Their constitutional right had been taken with out a trail at all.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Brad Phlipot
I keep hearing this "No Background" check? What planet do these people live on? Every time I make a purchase I have to fill out an FBI background check if it comes back all good you are all set if you are denied and here is the problem, you should be prosecuted under federal law. It says this on the for dammit. Most cases where a person is denied go without prosecution because the FBI and local police do not have the resources and time to charge ever person that lies on the check, I see it all the time. I mean it clearly states this is a FEDERAL FORM and if you lie you may face 15yrs in prison and be fined up to 25k?? I just renewed my tax stamp and went through an exhaustive process in order to purchase my suppressors. I do know some states allow private long gun sales but as the buyer I would run the serial numbers to make sure this purchase was clean and not a stolen or criminal used firearm it is common sense. To suggest a criminal or terrorist is going to make a legal purchase is ludicrous. Hell POTUS Chicago has somewhere between 10 and 40 shootings a month!!! Where the hell is the news on that? The FBI Crime stats can show you demographics, cities, neighborhoods and for that matter race committing the shootings so if they know that send in the SWAT teams or the National Guards and clean them out. This is a mute issue.
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/fbi-more-guns-less-violent-crime/
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/fbi-more-guns-less-violent-crime/
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google