OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
*crickets* *sigh*

Dang, I want solutions here. Don't you wish it was as easy as the Coca-Cola company made it seem in the old commercials?



I don't suppose buying a coke is the solution. Too much high fructose corn syrup.

I did also like this Christmas tree version as a kid.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tig
sunvalleylaw said:
So, can anyone explain to me why leaving the EU is really better? Beyond provincialism?
Click to expand...

It’s great if you’re in a position to short the pound sterling, British manufacturing, or British services companies that to employ lots of foreign workers due to a lack of skilled workers in the UK. I haven’t heard of any other benefit that holds up to scrutiny.

I bet Soros saw this coming and is going to make bank shorting the pound AGAIN.
 
Brexit will take 2 years to complete. Even Soros said the impact worldwide will be but a ripple.
 
Mrs. P and I were just talking about Brexit this morning and wondering if it would pave the way for more states to attempt to exercise states rights over federal law.

I, honestly, haven't really kept up with the reasons for exiting or the impact that it will have.

You'd thing being involved in the financial sector, I'd have done that, but I haven't.
 
VoidTerraFirma said:
Let me just throw some ideas out there:

FLexit
South Carolexit
Georgexit
Alabexit
Mississexit
Arkansexit
Texexit
Louisiexit
Arizexit
Click to expand...

13501770_1119357564845664_7563436761510022325_n.jpg
 
Prages said:
Here's the thing...

The "assault rifle", which is the most popular rifle in the US nowadays, is much maligned and not understood by most folks who are on the banned-wagon (pun intended).

Commercially available AR-15s do not have automatic mode or 3 round burst mode. The only thing that separates them from an underpowered semi-automatic hunting rifle is their magazine capacity.

Even then, my Glock 45 magazine holds 13 rounds, and takes all of about 1 second to change out magazines. Sure, you're not going to want to use a 45 handgun to pick off targets at a distance, but it'll do a hell of lot more damage at 25 yards or less than a .223 AR-15 will do.
Click to expand...
One of my students is a DEA agent who also is a certified armorer (sp?) for several manufacturers and he explained it to me that the main issue with an AR-15 being shot at people vs a hand gun or higher powered rifle is that the bullet tumbles and then bounces around in a persons body doing a ton of internal damage instead of just passing through. I had asked him essentially what makes an AR-15 any different than a high caliber handgun and that was his practical explanation. I'm not very knowledgable about the subject in real life terms other than what I've read so it was nice getting his point of view.
 
Mark Wein said:
One of my students is a DEA agent who also is a certified armorer (sp?) for several manufacturers and he explained it to me that the main issue with an AR-15 being shot at people vs a hand gun or higher powered rifle is that the bullet tumbles and then bounces around in a persons body doing a ton of internal damage instead of just passing through. I had asked him essentially what makes an AR-15 any different than a high caliber handgun and that was his practical explanation. I'm not very knowledgable about the subject in real life terms other than what I've read so it was nice getting his point of view.
Click to expand...

They, and others like them, were designed and built to wage war. No other purpose in mind...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tig
Here's my thoughts on the second amendment.

1. The second amendment starts "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". While the meaning of "well regulated" and "militia" can be debated endlessly, the fact that the words are present cannot be debated. Why are they there? Gun advocates claim that they are meant to be expository rather than limiting - in other words explaining the justification or need for the second amendment rather than limiting its scope. I don't buy that. The founding fathers did not seem to think that any of the other rights required exposition,so it is unlikely they would have added it to the second amendment just because. The US Constitution is terse and concise. The authors were not given to frilly wording. While we can't know exactly what the intentions of the founding fathers were, it is obvious they did not believe that the right to gun ownership should be universal and unlimited.

2. The word "militia" has been endlessly debated. While it is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, it is mentioned three times in section eight. In each of the three times "militia" is mentioned, the context is unmistakable: militia is something that is organized and controlled by the government. Gun advocates claim that if you take the body of evidence (all the writings of the era), "militia" is used to describe any male of age who is able to fight. Although popular, it is debatable (George Washington found militiamen worse than useless until the colonies started properly outfitting and training them).

3. Gun advocates claim that the founding fathers intended for citizens to be armed in the case that they needed to overthrow the government. I find this argument the most ridiculous of all. If the founding fathers had intended for there to be an escape mechanism from the United States, they'd have simply written one into the Constitution. In fact, the Constitutional convention was hastened along because the fledgling Federal government wanted the ability to squash uprisings like the then current whiskey rebellion. They certainly did not want armed citizens to overthrow the government.

4. Much is made of the 1886 US Supreme Court ruling that gun ownership is an individual right, and following rulings. It pays to keep in mind that the US Supreme court has also upheld bans on mixed race marriages. Supreme Court rulings are not immutable gospel and are subject to change.

This thread has gone 122 pages of interesting conversation and debate without getting locked. Please, please, let's keep this civil.
 
GomezAddams said:
Here's my thoughts on the second amendment.

1. The second amendment starts "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". While the meaning of "well regulated" and "militia" can be debated endlessly, the fact that the words are present cannot be debated. Why are they there? Gun advocates claim that they are meant to be expository rather than limiting - in other words explaining the justification or need for the second amendment rather than limiting its scope. I don't buy that. The founding fathers did not seem to think that any of the other rights required exposition,so it is unlikely they would have added it to the second amendment just because. The US Constitution is terse and concise. The authors were not given to frilly wording. While we can't know exactly what the intentions of the founding fathers were, it is obvious they did not believe that the right to gun ownership should be universal and unlimited.

2. The word "militia" has been endlessly debated. While it is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, it is mentioned three times in section eight. In each of the three times "militia" is mentioned, the context is unmistakable: militia is something that is organized and controlled by the government. Gun advocates claim that if you take the body of evidence (all the writings of the era), "militia" is used to describe any male of age who is able to fight. Although popular, it is debatable (George Washington found militiamen worse than useless until the colonies started properly outfitting and training them).

3. Gun advocates claim that the founding fathers intended for citizens to be armed in the case that they needed to overthrow the government. I find this argument the most ridiculous of all. If the founding fathers had intended for there to be an escape mechanism from the United States, they'd have simply written one into the Constitution. In fact, the Constitutional convention was hastened along because the fledgling Federal government wanted the ability to squash uprisings like the then current whiskey rebellion. They certainly did not want armed citizens to overthrow the government.

4. Much is made of the 1886 US Supreme Court ruling that gun ownership is an individual right, and following rulings. It pays to keep in mind that the US Supreme court has also upheld bans on mixed race marriages. Supreme Court rulings are not immutable gospel and are subject to change.

This thread has gone 122 pages of interesting conversation and debate without getting locked. Please, please, let's keep this civil.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Thank you. Seriously.

Entitlement is something that causes so many to ignore reason and simply justify their behavior/desires. The only thing this is done with more than our Constitution are holy books. Stick to the letter of law always, unless (of course) interpretation can justify your point of view, regardless of how well-intentioned or misguided it may be. Or vice versa. That's what scares me about Trump and the fervor he's created...a group that feels entitled to their bigotry and hatred feeling like they have someone speaking their truth. Sadly, it seems that it is their truth, but they think Trump will make it law and are blind to how that directly contradicts the Constitution that they hold dear. You can't change anything about it, unless it's what I want you to change!
 
One thing I know about the AR and any other rifle is they are significantly easier to shoot accurately. In the hands of a marksman or Hunter, that's great. In the hands of someone determined to commit an act of violence it's a liability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top