Page 4 of 16 [ 250 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Nov 2016, 11:07 am

I don't think an interstate compact would constitutional or work in that way. One thing I guess that could be done very easily is for a state to instruct its electoral college to vote the same as the national popular vote but I don't think any state would do that. A open constitutional convention where multiple amendments could be proposed is the only way and I see there being no political will for it.

Expanding congress wouldn't need an amendment to the constitution so that part would be fairly simple altho repealing the 17th amendment would which to be fair I think would be fairly unlikely at this point as well. Expanding congress would ensure more democratic representation so I don't see the worry about gerrymandering, being in represented in a district of 70k is obviously more democratic than a district of 700k in my opinion. Procedure would have to change but I think it could made workable, I think you'd probably see many different caucuses and importance on state delegations as a whole. Expansion doesn't have to be that radical either, there is no reason for it to stay at 435 and at the very least all congressional districts should have an even representation which is not the case right now where some districts have 500,000 and others almost a million with an average of 700k which is greater than the population of several states.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 12:55 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I don't think an interstate compact would constitutional or work in that way. One thing I guess that could be done very easily is for a state to instruct its electoral college to vote the same as the national popular vote but I don't think any state would do that. A open constitutional convention where multiple amendments could be proposed is the only way and I see there being no political will for it.

Expanding congress wouldn't need an amendment to the constitution so that part would be fairly simple altho repealing the 17th amendment would which to be fair I think would be fairly unlikely at this point as well. Expanding congress would ensure more democratic representation so I don't see the worry about gerrymandering, being in represented in a district of 70k is obviously more democratic than a district of 700k in my opinion. Procedure would have to change but I think it could made workable, I think you'd probably see many different caucuses and importance on state delegations as a whole. Expansion doesn't have to be that radical either, there is no reason for it to stay at 435 and at the very least all congressional districts should have an even representation which is not the case right now where some districts have 500,000 and others almost a million with an average of 700k which is greater than the population of several states.

They'd have to build a new massive building. I suspect they kept it as is so they can keep using the current historical building. It simiply won't hold that many representatives



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 1:03 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Most rural democrats are gun owners.
Here is a democrat the NRA loves.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 4b316.html

So 0.o
Sanders was not super anti gun(still too much) but during the election he went super anti gun to try to win the election. Why because that's the party line. Same reason anti gun republicans go pro gun during elections.
California and New York democrats would never vote for s pro gun democrat


Thing is, if Bernie won the nomination, he wouldn't have had to tow the party line if he didn't want to. He could have switched his views on gun rights back to his original position, and I think he might have. That was the mistake Romney made - he was a moderate Republican who had to pose as a severe conservative, and stayed in that mode even when he didn't have to any more, thereby losing the election.

Sanders is just a big sell out. Under trump we'll see good things happen for gun owners that no future democrats can overturn in our lifetime. Pro gun supreme judges. Which will allow us to bring up illegal gun control laws and get them overturned. Along with the doj telling states to stop enacting illegal laws or face getting no federal funds along with lawsuits. And hopefully push through laws removing the national firearms act.


I could personally care less about what Trump does about guns, as that's just not one of my concerns. Just as long as Trump doesn't boot millions of Americans off of social security, disability, or health care, or turn back civil rights, which are my concerns.


Those are both equal issues to me. Gun rights were fading the greater threat. If Hilary had one the 2nd anmendment would be so infringed that it'd be meaningless, we have a registeration, alsmost total gun ban and likely a bloody civil war. The appointment of 1-4 Supreme Court judges was at stake. Maybe the democrats should have though of that. About half or over half of the nation owns guns. And they showed up in force, while anti gunners as shown in the past tend to be lazy, it doesn't directly effect true, so they have less motivation to show up and vote then gun owners who face losing everything. Yet the democrat party keeps supporting a losing horse over and over. Losing millions millions of votes. I'm a democrat and I'm sure other gun owners are too, but we're gun owners first. I hope trump won't give Paul Ryan his wet dream of destroying ssi and Medicaid. That's all we can do now. Democrats set trump to be elected via their arrogance, and thinking they know what's best for us even if we disagree.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

22 Nov 2016, 1:17 pm

auntblabby wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Let's not forget ...This year, 5.6 million people were forced to pay the Obamacare tax penalty. "Health Law Tax Penalty? I’ll Take It, Millions Say"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/ob ... .html?_r=0
Trump is going to fix this.

sure he will, by dumping 20+ million people off of their affordable health care, and by dint of that causing a major disruption of the domestic individual health insurance market as collateral damage. and the GOP has not a clue about how to avoid this mess. they are amateurs at everything but making unnecessary trouble for a majority of their constituents. they only serve money without even lip service to anything else.


Yeah, Obama really cares about US citizens, apart from the ones he's blown up I guess.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Earthbound
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Feb 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: USA

22 Nov 2016, 1:26 pm

sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Most rural democrats are gun owners.
Here is a democrat the NRA loves.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 4b316.html

So 0.o
Sanders was not super anti gun(still too much) but during the election he went super anti gun to try to win the election. Why because that's the party line. Same reason anti gun republicans go pro gun during elections.
California and New York democrats would never vote for s pro gun democrat


Thing is, if Bernie won the nomination, he wouldn't have had to tow the party line if he didn't want to. He could have switched his views on gun rights back to his original position, and I think he might have. That was the mistake Romney made - he was a moderate Republican who had to pose as a severe conservative, and stayed in that mode even when he didn't have to any more, thereby losing the election.

Sanders is just a big sell out. Under trump we'll see good things happen for gun owners that no future democrats can overturn in our lifetime. Pro gun supreme judges. Which will allow us to bring up illegal gun control laws and get them overturned. Along with the doj telling states to stop enacting illegal laws or face getting no federal funds along with lawsuits. And hopefully push through laws removing the national firearms act.


I could personally care less about what Trump does about guns, as that's just not one of my concerns. Just as long as Trump doesn't boot millions of Americans off of social security, disability, or health care, or turn back civil rights, which are my concerns.


Those are both equal issues to me. Gun rights were fading the greater threat. If Hilary had one the 2nd anmendment would be so infringed that it'd be meaningless, we have a registeration, alsmost total gun ban and likely a bloody civil war. The appointment of 1-4 Supreme Court judges was at stake. Maybe the democrats should have though of that. About half or over half of the nation owns guns. And they showed up in force, while anti gunners as shown in the past tend to be lazy, it doesn't directly effect true, so they have less motivation to show up and vote then gun owners who face losing everything. Yet the democrat party keeps supporting a losing horse over and over. Losing millions millions of votes. I'm a democrat and I'm sure other gun owners are too, but we're gun owners first. I hope trump won't give Paul Ryan his wet dream of destroying ssi and Medicaid. That's all we can do now. Democrats set trump to be elected via their arrogance, and thinking they know what's best for us even if we disagree.


:roll: People were just paranoid that Hillary was going to do a lot to the 2nd ammendment. But honestly that isnt even close to being true. Especially when so many people in house+senate are bribed by NRA people, so stuff would've been blocked anyway. Plus when Trump suggested people use the 2nd ammendment if Hillary won- that scared a lot of people. I don't care if he was kidding- it was a horrible threat that no candidate should make. He was advocating for violence if he didnt get his way!

I'm all for more gun control laws, period. There's been WAY too many shootings in the USA in the past few years. Many could've been prevented if laws were in place. Background checks should be more detailed. People on terrorist lists shouldn't have guns- period. Many times the shooters are people that just left a list, so it really feels like they were waiting until the time came to do an attack. As I've said before- if gun owners have issues with background checks and tighter rules.. perhaps they are hiding something! Look at all the news stories of nuts that stockpile guns and ammo, then they are shot dead after they killed a girlfriend, mother, father or friend. It's clear the people not mentally stable shouldn't be getting that amount of stuff, period. Restrictions on how many guns a person can buy, and how much ammo they can have should also be a thing (if it isnt now). Stores and gun sellers need to see the red flags and think "alright this person has way too much stuff now and isnt a hunter" or whatever, then its reported to the police.

I admit I'm not an expert on gun laws but I do know they are very broke when mass shootings happen time after time- at a mall, a school or wherever. Plus all the incidents with these psychos that stockpiled stuff then its found (as I mentioned more above). Also- all the times when gang warfare spreads to random people.. and they get shot (and in many cases- killed) because gangs are fighting over some stupid crap.

How many more people need to die due to shootings before something serious is done? I find it so sickening that many pro-gun people are concerned more about their rights, rather than the safety of everyone else in USA. It's selfish and immature.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 2:14 pm

Earthbound wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Most rural democrats are gun owners.
Here is a democrat the NRA loves.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 4b316.html

So 0.o
Sanders was not super anti gun(still too much) but during the election he went super anti gun to try to win the election. Why because that's the party line. Same reason anti gun republicans go pro gun during elections.
California and New York democrats would never vote for s pro gun democrat


Thing is, if Bernie won the nomination, he wouldn't have had to tow the party line if he didn't want to. He could have switched his views on gun rights back to his original position, and I think he might have. That was the mistake Romney made - he was a moderate Republican who had to pose as a severe conservative, and stayed in that mode even when he didn't have to any more, thereby losing the election.

Sanders is just a big sell out. Under trump we'll see good things happen for gun owners that no future democrats can overturn in our lifetime. Pro gun supreme judges. Which will allow us to bring up illegal gun control laws and get them overturned. Along with the doj telling states to stop enacting illegal laws or face getting no federal funds along with lawsuits. And hopefully push through laws removing the national firearms act.


I could personally care less about what Trump does about guns, as that's just not one of my concerns. Just as long as Trump doesn't boot millions of Americans off of social security, disability, or health care, or turn back civil rights, which are my concerns.


Those are both equal issues to me. Gun rights were fading the greater threat. If Hilary had one the 2nd anmendment would be so infringed that it'd be meaningless, we have a registeration, alsmost total gun ban and likely a bloody civil war. The appointment of 1-4 Supreme Court judges was at stake. Maybe the democrats should have though of that. About half or over half of the nation owns guns. And they showed up in force, while anti gunners as shown in the past tend to be lazy, it doesn't directly effect true, so they have less motivation to show up and vote then gun owners who face losing everything. Yet the democrat party keeps supporting a losing horse over and over. Losing millions millions of votes. I'm a democrat and I'm sure other gun owners are too, but we're gun owners first. I hope trump won't give Paul Ryan his wet dream of destroying ssi and Medicaid. That's all we can do now. Democrats set trump to be elected via their arrogance, and thinking they know what's best for us even if we disagree.


:roll: People were just paranoid that Hillary was going to do a lot to the 2nd ammendment. But honestly that isnt even close to being true. Especially when so many people in house+senate are bribed by NRA people, so stuff would've been blocked anyway. Plus when Trump suggested people use the 2nd ammendment if Hillary won- that scared a lot of people. I don't care if he was kidding- it was a horrible threat that no candidate should make. He was advocating for violence if he didnt get his way!

I'm all for more gun control laws, period. There's been WAY too many shootings in the USA in the past few years. Many could've been prevented if laws were in place. Background checks should be more detailed. People on terrorist lists shouldn't have guns- period. Many times the shooters are people that just left a list, so it really feels like they were waiting until the time came to do an attack. As I've said before- if gun owners have issues with background checks and tighter rules.. perhaps they are hiding something! Look at all the news stories of nuts that stockpile guns and ammo, then they are shot dead after they killed a girlfriend, mother, father or friend. It's clear the people not mentally stable shouldn't be getting that amount of stuff, period. Restrictions on how many guns a person can buy, and how much ammo they can have should also be a thing (if it isnt now). Stores and gun sellers need to see the red flags and think "alright this person has way too much stuff now and isnt a hunter" or whatever, then its reported to the police.

I admit I'm not an expert on gun laws but I do know they are very broke when mass shootings happen time after time- at a mall, a school or wherever. Plus all the incidents with these psychos that stockpiled stuff then its found (as I mentioned more above). Also- all the times when gang warfare spreads to random people.. and they get shot (and in many cases- killed) because gangs are fighting over some stupid crap.

How many more people need to die due to shootings before something serious is done? I find it so sickening that many pro-gun people are concerned more about their rights, rather than the safety of everyone else in USA. It's selfish and immature.



No she wouldn't needed congress she was going make the Supreme Court extremely left biased, and flat out said she was going have heller and all pro gun court decisions turned over by the new anti gun court, she also said she supports an austrialia like gun ban.

Those shootings happen in anti gun states and in gun free zones so yeah gun control is what makes mass shootings possibly and your reaction is more which makes it even more easier to do mass shootings, and the media gives tons of publicity which makes the nex shooter want to kill more people to outdo the last one and be more famous.

What the f***. Apply that logic to anyone , you sound like the NSA. If you don't got nothing to hid then why not let us invade your privacy. Almost every mass shooter passed the freaking background check. It's a failed system that stops no one but law abiding citizen who need guns for self defense, so let's expand it. Illogical

This is why your side loses and why trump is the president. You disagree with us so call us nuts or deplorables. I stock pile ammo and have lots of guns. Lots of people do including police officers and military members along with doctors and politicians to school teachers. I think I'll go buy another gun this year just to spite you. No the government has no right to tell citizens how many guns they can own, just as they can't tell you how many cars, dvds, cds, games, knifes, etc you can own. Want to do something to help how about banning cars that go faster then 75mph. That's the max speed limit so why have cars that can go faster then that when they should never be Going faster then that.
Do you want a civil war? Millions upon millions of deaths ? This is America we a free nation, not nazi Germany.
Anyone who buys a sports car should be immediately locked up for speeding even though they may never speed. Freak innocent until proven guilty let's just lock people up for being different and what we think they'll do.

I dont know how many people need to die from shootings until your side admits the laws don't work and let people be able to defend themselves?

I have nothing more to say to you.youre so mislead by the media. I bet you think 500 rounds of 22lr is a huge stockpile. Gun owners laugh we we see news headlines like " they had 40rd of 223 and 50 12ga and 500rds of 22, such a huge stockpile only could be used for mass shootings"
When in reality lot people will shoot 1000-5000 223, 500-2000 9mm/40/45, and 10000 22lr on a weekend trip to a range. Poor people like myself will shoot 100-250 of the first two and a box of 500 22 will on,y last few hours at the range . Shot gun ammomgoes fast too. This is why people "stockpile" so they can do range days or so during panic buying where ammo is out of stock or selling for 10 times its original price they can still go shooting. It's same reason many people reload their own ammo.
An then there's competition people from average joe to professional who'll shot that much every weekend and shoot hundreds of thousands of rounds or more a year.
Maybe try learning about people before jumping to judgmental and descrimintary conclusions



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 2:17 pm

As for being paranoid.
We react to claims made by obama and Hilary.

Not like leftists who hear "trump wants to build a wall" and say "trumps going send police to houses and shoot all the Mexicans including citizens"

That's paranoid, same with all the people claiming he's hitler.

It's not paranoid to say Hilary wants to ban guns when she comes out saying she thinks the Australia gun ban should happen here or she plans to overturn all pro gun court desicisions starting with heller which says people have the right to own guns(i.e. No gun bans)



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

22 Nov 2016, 2:29 pm

Hillary was pretty straight forward with being anti-2nd amendment not to mention being her dream of a 'hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.' She is a full on globalist of the worst kind.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,783
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Nov 2016, 2:47 pm

Sly-

We don't call people like you nuts and deplorables for owning guns, which is a right. The deplorables we speak of are the trash and inbreds who are attending the white nationalist rallies to celebrate Trump with Nazi salutes, and shouts of "Hail Victory" (which is English for Sieg Heil).


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 3:18 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Sly-

We don't call people like you nuts and deplorables for owning guns, which is a right. The deplorables we speak of are the trash and inbreds who are attending the white nationalist rallies to celebrate Trump with Nazi salutes, and shouts of "Hail Victory" (which is English for Sieg Heil).

"Nuts who stockpile guns and ammo"
"Gun nuts"
And Hilary called all trump supports (most gun owners supported trump) deplorables

Many on the left consider anyone who owns a gun or more nuts. I'm tried of being called crazy for liking guns and wanting to be able to defend myself.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 3:21 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Hillary was pretty straight forward with being anti-2nd amendment not to mention being her dream of a 'hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.' She is a full on globalist of the worst kind.

So is obama and bunch of democrats repersentives and senators. Schumer, frienstien are big ones



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,324
Location: Aux Arcs

22 Nov 2016, 4:46 pm

sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Sly-

We don't call people like you nuts and deplorables for owning guns, which is a right. The deplorables we speak of are the trash and inbreds who are attending the white nationalist rallies to celebrate Trump with Nazi salutes, and shouts of "Hail Victory" (which is English for Sieg Heil).

"Nuts who stockpile guns and ammo"
"Gun nuts"
And Hilary called all trump supports (most gun owners supported trump) deplorables

Many on the left consider anyone who owns a gun or more nuts. I'm tried of being called crazy for liking guns and wanting to be able to defend myself.

Not all.Most rural people are pro gun no matter what their politics are.There are old school hippies here that have guns,maybe at one time they were against them.But when a black bear walks thru their yard they convert pretty quick.lol
My guess is that the majority of anti-gun democrats live in urban areas where there is good police protection,they don't feel they need one for safety.If they have no rural background,then they don't have the positive impressive of just having fun shooting targets,or putting meat on the table to feed the family.Most city people are as afraid of a gun as they are of a bug.Just plop a big spider down by one and see what happens.


_________________
"Security is mostly a superstition.It does not exist in nature,nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.Life is either a daring adventure,or nothing." Helen Keller


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Nov 2016, 5:03 pm

Misslizard wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Sly-

We don't call people like you nuts and deplorables for owning guns, which is a right. The deplorables we speak of are the trash and inbreds who are attending the white nationalist rallies to celebrate Trump with Nazi salutes, and shouts of "Hail Victory" (which is English for Sieg Heil).

"Nuts who stockpile guns and ammo"
"Gun nuts"
And Hilary called all trump supports (most gun owners supported trump) deplorables

Many on the left consider anyone who owns a gun or more nuts. I'm tried of being called crazy for liking guns and wanting to be able to defend myself.

Not all.Most rural people are pro gun no matter what their politics are.There are old school hippies here that have guns,maybe at one time they were against them.But when a black bear walks thru their yard they convert pretty quick.lol
My guess is that the majority of anti-gun democrats live in urban areas where there is good police protection,they don't feel they need one for safety.If they have no rural background,then they don't have the positive impressive of just having fun shooting targets,or putting meat on the table to feed the family.Most city people are as afraid of a gun as they are of a bug.Just plop a big spider down by one and see what happens.


Urban populations make up the majority of the democrat party. Look at the election maps. The blue is limited to counties with major cities and area around them.
3-4 cities decided mY states election, they are also the ones pushing the anti gun agenda on the rest of my state



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Nov 2016, 5:23 pm

Earthbound wrote:
:roll: People were just paranoid that Hillary was going to do a lot to the 2nd ammendment. But honestly that isnt even close to being true. Especially when so many people in house+senate are bribed by NRA people, so stuff would've been blocked anyway. Plus when Trump suggested people use the 2nd ammendment if Hillary won- that scared a lot of people. I don't care if he was kidding- it was a horrible threat that no candidate should make. He was advocating for violence if he didnt get his way!

I'm all for more gun control laws, period. There's been WAY too many shootings in the USA in the past few years. Many could've been prevented if laws were in place. Background checks should be more detailed. People on terrorist lists shouldn't have guns- period. Many times the shooters are people that just left a list, so it really feels like they were waiting until the time came to do an attack. As I've said before- if gun owners have issues with background checks and tighter rules.. perhaps they are hiding something! Look at all the news stories of nuts that stockpile guns and ammo, then they are shot dead after they killed a girlfriend, mother, father or friend. It's clear the people not mentally stable shouldn't be getting that amount of stuff, period. Restrictions on how many guns a person can buy, and how much ammo they can have should also be a thing (if it isnt now). Stores and gun sellers need to see the red flags and think "alright this person has way too much stuff now and isnt a hunter" or whatever, then its reported to the police.

I admit I'm not an expert on gun laws but I do know they are very broke when mass shootings happen time after time- at a mall, a school or wherever. Plus all the incidents with these psychos that stockpiled stuff then its found (as I mentioned more above). Also- all the times when gang warfare spreads to random people.. and they get shot (and in many cases- killed) because gangs are fighting over some stupid crap.


How many more people need to die due to shootings before something serious is done? I find it so sickening that many pro-gun people are concerned more about their rights, rather than the safety of everyone else in USA. It's selfish and immature.


Let's set aside just for now that there is an enumerated right in the constitution (heard of it?) and all of that will of the people nonsense for a minute. We don't even need to talk about the specifics of anti-gun legislation.

What drives gun mass buying and ammo hoarding are threats ,real or imagined, of anti-gun legislation coming down like what we had after Sandy Hook. More guns have been sold, especially the scary kind, and ammo sold by the 500 and 1000 round cases than any time in history. You couldn't even find an AR-15 for months after Sandy Hook. Our shooting range here in Dogpatch has experienced a windfall in new memberships and non-member user fees. We now have more money than we know how to spend and have bought additional land to expand operations onto. New gun shops have opened across the country and the manufactures have introduced new models that there was no demand for earlier. The Obama Administration has unwittingly been the gun industry's be$t friend. I could write a few pages about this.

So yes by all means urge your representatives to try and push through more gun laws, the entire gun industry will love them for it since it only means more $$$ for them.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Nov 2016, 5:29 pm

Misslizard wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Sly-

We don't call people like you nuts and deplorables for owning guns, which is a right. The deplorables we speak of are the trash and inbreds who are attending the white nationalist rallies to celebrate Trump with Nazi salutes, and shouts of "Hail Victory" (which is English for Sieg Heil).

"Nuts who stockpile guns and ammo"
"Gun nuts"
And Hilary called all trump supports (most gun owners supported trump) deplorables

Many on the left consider anyone who owns a gun or more nuts. I'm tried of being called crazy for liking guns and wanting to be able to defend myself.

Not all.Most rural people are pro gun no matter what their politics are.There are old school hippies here that have guns,maybe at one time they were against them.But when a black bear walks thru their yard they convert pretty quick.lol
My guess is that the majority of anti-gun democrats live in urban areas where there is good police protection,they don't feel they need one for safety.If they have no rural background,then they don't have the positive impressive of just having fun shooting targets,or putting meat on the table to feed the family.Most city people are as afraid of a gun as they are of a bug.Just plop a big spider down by one and see what happens.


A lot of those old school hippies are libertarian since it's more inline with thier live free values than the kind of oppression that the democratic party now represents.

Police protection in urban areas is notoriously lacking.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Earthbound
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Feb 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: USA

22 Nov 2016, 5:34 pm

There's a big difference between defending and just being crazy. I think many people with tons of guns and ammo are indeed crazy. A bit are the "prepper/end of the world" type of person, while others are the crazies that are shown on the news. I never once meant all were. I'm sure some are sane and decent people that literally wouldn't attack someone they got mad at. However.. that one guy recently- I think it was in North Carolina. He killed several people and had insane amounts of stuff hoarded away. He is a great example on why there should be better gun control laws. Perhaps not limits on guns but something in place to prevent people from mass shootings. I also highly doubt every big shooting in America has been in a place with no gun laws, but gun owners tend to believe what they want so they can argue that their precious guns can't be taken away due to the ammendment. :roll:

Trump was elected due to paranoia, hate and ignorance. I don't agree with Hillary much either but I feel she was at least a little more sane. People still think everything in Wikileaks was 100 percent true plus all the conspiracy theories from random news sites online (which is also not confirmed in every case). Look at what Trump has done in the past- bullied people, conned people out of money and used his power to make lawsuits go away. He will do more of the same while in office. Hell.. he is already trying to control the media. He is upset when they report about him speaking, then he says "I didnt say that". Sorry but the footage is NOT doctored. He is a crook and conman that doesnt belong in politics.