welcome back to the cloak room, surly conservatives

[Ag with kids 581]

56 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Cars and guns are absolutely the same thing.

Well, they're both inanimate objects that only do something if someone decides to take control of them and then does something with it.

You want a Bugatti Veyron that does 200+ mph...cool.   Take me with you

You want a 100 round magazine for your AR-15....cool.  Take me with you.

[Ag with kids 581]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Sorry, I didn't realize you were being intentionally stupid.  

I didn't realize you were, either...

[DDD Dad 14243]

5 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I didn't realize you were, either...

Posts like this will get you crowd sourced. 

[Ag with kids 581]

42 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

See if your tech can find your response to the question about increase in debt and deficit spending over the last 50 years

Here...Is this the response that you were looking for?

 

This is what I posted to your first (I think) reply to me.

 

Tell us about the Mulford Act

 

Well - got me there.  ONE anti gun bill passed by Republicans in CA.  In the 60s.

 

Any idea who granted the biggest immigration amnesty in history?

 

Well, Reagan signed it…but, Congress was controlled by Democrats - so, that’s 2-1 Democrats.

 

Trying to overturn Roe v Wade May single-handedly sink the party  60+% and growing are pro choice for pregnancies < 20 weeks and >80% for rape/incest. Texas’s law is extreme right wing, like Islamic Republic right wing

 

How does this negate that Roe v Wade is a Democrat party issue.  FWIW, I’m agnostic on abortion.  However, unlike the vast majority of abortion, I don’t rationalize away the fact that a human like is being ended.

 

Gender laws are just meat for the base  

 

Again, this does not negate my point that these are Democrat party issues

 

Who ran on immigration reform as his number one priority, and was ready to make good on that when 9/11 happened?

 

GWB - but, immigration REFORM.  Not what is proposed by the Democrats. Based on everything he posted, I’m going to guess that TwiceHorn doesn’t support heavily restricting immigration at the borders.  Or forgoing amnesty for existing illegal immigrants.

 

GOP didn’t used to be just against tax hikes, they also were careful with spending. Go ahead and list the deficit spending levels and increases in the national debt for each admin since Nixon for us

 

The number one driver of government spending is Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.  (Other than horrible additional spending that the gov’t does to “solve problems”). These are continuing to grow and are NON-discretionary - so neither party can control the spending, short of changing the programs.  GWB did propose working to reform SS, but was accused of killing grandmas (there was actually a TV commercial of that) so that died…

 

And SS and MC/MC are NOT GOP programs.

 

Now, have the GOP failed a lot of times - hell yes they have.  Like the Tax Reform in the 80s.  The agreement was tax increases now and spending cuts later - guess which one Congress never put through.

 

Govt involvement in healthcare — give us one paragraph on Medicare part D

 

Medicare Part D covers prescription drugs under the Medicare program.  GWB helped pass it.

Now, Do Parts A-C.  GOP isn’t against all reform, just lots of gov’t control.  I’ve been in the NIH - even poors in the US would think it was spartan.

[bolverk 29394]

10 minutes ago, Cacti said:

Sure, it would have been a great start but it doesn’t follow that our European partners could be convinced to join us. Unfortunately they don’t view China as either an imminent economic or military threat.

As you pointed out, Trump was viewed as untrustworthy by the Europeans—and with good reason. But it doesn’t appear that Biden has done much to reestablish that trust (if there was any to begin with).  In fact, several of our NATO allies complained about the lack of communication from the administration concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the Australian/American/British submarine deal has set back relations with the EU.  

So, no, the Europeans didn’t trust Trump, but they don’t trust Biden, either. But that’s o.k., our European allies are also untrustworthy.

Part 1:

Our trade relations the EU have improved since Trump left office, and they are willing to work with us on China in regards to trade. This is an example of how you get allies on board as opposed to burning long-lasting relationships to the ground.

EU seeks to forge new global trade rules with U.S.

BRUSSELS, Dec 1 (Reuters) - The European Union has experienced a "breakthrough year" with the United States even if not all trade irritants are gone and now wants to work with its transatlantic ally to start forging trade rules for the future, the EU trade chief said.

A year on from Joe Biden's defeat of Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential election, the two sides have suspended their disputes over aircraft subsidies and steel and aluminium tariffs and launched an alliance to cooperate on future technologies.

"One can say that this year was indeed a breakthrough year for EU-U.S. trade relations," European Commission Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis said in an interview for the Reuters Next conference.

On steel, the United States has replaced tariffs on all EU imports with tariff-free quotas based on historical volumes. Dombrovskis said the end result in two years had to be a complete lifting of tariffs and quotas.

Brussels was also looking closely at the United States' "Buy American" agenda aimed at ensuring that federal agencies buy American-produced goods as much as possible, which has already caused tensions with Canada and Mexico. 

Dombrovskis said the EU would look at the extent to which Washington respects its international commitments. Both are signatories to the WTO agreement on government procurement.

"There are clearly things to watch, but what I can say is that we are now engaging constructively so I am confident we are able to address any issues or concerns that are coming," Dombrovskis said.

The European Union, the United States and Japan on Tuesday relaunched their trilateral partnership to tackle problems of non-market economies, such as China. The work is to include developing new trade rules.

Dombrovskis said he planned to meet with his counterparts in half a year to take stock and decide on next steps. China would feature but would not be the sole focus of this and other discussions between the EU and the United States on steel overcapacity, aircraft subsidies and technology, he said.

Dombrovskis and the world's top trade officials were due to meet in Geneva for the World Trade Organization's ministerial conference this week, until Swiss coronavirus restrictions forced its postponement.

The EU had hoped to emerge from the meeting with a new group to work on reform of the WTO and global trading rules and to produce results by the following meeting due in two years' time.

Dombrovskis said the bloc wants a reform of the rule book to take into account green and digital economic transformation, industrial subsidies and state-owned enterprises.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

13 minutes ago, Cacti said:

 But it doesn’t appear that Biden has done much to reestablish that trust (if there was any to begin with).  In fact, several of our NATO allies complained about the lack of communication from the administration

Maybe Mr. Cruz could answer that one.....it would help if there were ambassadors to communicate with other countries and advocate for US interests.

 

 

 

 

@Ag with kids this is the gun control thread below:

There are several threads to discuss conservative spending policy:

There are lots of topics about policy in which to discuss one's position and perspective.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

19 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Well, they're both inanimate objects that only do something if someone decides to take control of them and then does something with it.

You want a Bugatti Veyron that does 200+ mph...cool.   Take me with you

You want a 100 round magazine for your AR-15....cool.  Take me with you.

Guns are made expressly to kill people. Cars are not. Explain to me why you or anyone needs a gun. 

[Ag with kids 581]

27 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Here...Is this the response that you were looking for?

 

This is what I posted to your first (I think) reply to me.

 

Tell us about the Mulford Act

 

Well - got me there.  ONE anti gun bill passed by Republicans in CA.  In the 60s.

 

Any idea who granted the biggest immigration amnesty in history?

 

Well, Reagan signed it…but, Congress was controlled by Democrats - so, that’s 2-1 Democrats.

 

Trying to overturn Roe v Wade May single-handedly sink the party  60+% and growing are pro choice for pregnancies < 20 weeks and >80% for rape/incest. Texas’s law is extreme right wing, like Islamic Republic right wing

 

How does this negate that Roe v Wade is a Democrat party issue.  FWIW, I’m agnostic on abortion.  However, unlike the vast majority of abortion, I don’t rationalize away the fact that a human like is being ended.

 

Gender laws are just meat for the base  

 

Again, this does not negate my point that these are Democrat party issues

 

Who ran on immigration reform as his number one priority, and was ready to make good on that when 9/11 happened?

 

GWB - but, immigration REFORM.  Not what is proposed by the Democrats. Based on everything he posted, I’m going to guess that TwiceHorn doesn’t support heavily restricting immigration at the borders.  Or forgoing amnesty for existing illegal immigrants.

 

GOP didn’t used to be just against tax hikes, they also were careful with spending. Go ahead and list the deficit spending levels and increases in the national debt for each admin since Nixon for us

 

The number one driver of government spending is Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.  (Other than horrible additional spending that the gov’t does to “solve problems”). These are continuing to grow and are NON-discretionary - so neither party can control the spending, short of changing the programs.  GWB did propose working to reform SS, but was accused of killing grandmas (there was actually a TV commercial of that) so that died…

 

And SS and MC/MC are NOT GOP programs.

 

Now, have the GOP failed a lot of times - hell yes they have.  Like the Tax Reform in the 80s.  The agreement was tax increases now and spending cuts later - guess which one Congress never put through.

 

Govt involvement in healthcare — give us one paragraph on Medicare part D

 

Medicare Part D covers prescription drugs under the Medicare program.  GWB helped pass it.

Now, Do Parts A-C.  GOP isn’t against all reform, just lots of gov’t control.  I’ve been in the NIH - even poors in the US would think it was spartan.

Apparently I acquired some free rent property in the head of @cactusflinthead since he dropped 14 neg reps on my posts in just a few minutes...

I guess this is how y'all welcome conservatives to SurlyHorns (a nod to the title of the thread for you slow people)....

Edited December 5, 2021 by Ag with kids

[DDD Dad 14243]

Apparently I acquired some free rent property in the head of [mention=541]cactusflinthead[/mention] since he dropped 14 neg reps on my posts.
I guess this is how y'all welcome conservatives to SurlyHorns (a nod to the title of the thread for you slow people)....

It’s how posters who troll are greeted.

[bolverk 29394]

20 minutes ago, Cacti said:

Sure, it would have been a great start but it doesn’t follow that our European partners could be convinced to join us. Unfortunately they don’t view China as either an imminent economic or military threat.

As you pointed out, Trump was viewed as untrustworthy by the Europeans—and with good reason. But it doesn’t appear that Biden has done much to reestablish that trust (if there was any to begin with).  In fact, several of our NATO allies complained about the lack of communication from the administration concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the Australian/American/British submarine deal has set back relations with the EU.  

So, no, the Europeans didn’t trust Trump, but they don’t trust Biden, either. But that’s o.k., our European allies are also untrustworthy.

Part 2:

Our improving relationship with our European allies is also helping to get them more focused China as a unified alliance through NATO. It's a good thing Trump didn't shred that treaty like he hinted at wanting to do several times. Not having a nationalistic isolationist president can produce good yields. It's a shame the GOP has embraced that ideology, which runs counter to the party's position they previously held as long as I can remember.

 

Shifting Focus, NATO Views China as a Global Security Challenge
NATO leaders expressed a new concern about China’s growing military might, signaling a fundamental shift in the attentions of an alliance devoted to protecting Europe and North America — not Asia.

BRUSSELS — China’s rising military ambitions are presenting NATO with challenges that must be addressed, the 30-nation Western alliance said Monday, the first time it has portrayed the expanding reach and capabilities of the Chinese armed forces in such a potentially confrontational way.

The description of China, contained in the communiqué issued at the conclusion of a one-day summit meeting attended by President Biden and others, reflected a new concern over how China intends to wield its rapidly growing military might and offensive cyber technologies in the coming years.

At the Group of 7 meeting in Britain that ended on Sunday, Mr. Biden and his counterparts agreed to jointly counter China’s growing economic dominance. On Monday, NATO countries warned that China increasingly poses a global security problem as well, signaling a fundamental shift in the attentions of an institution devoted to protecting Europe and North America — not Asia.

The first minor reference to China in a NATO statement, not even a communiqué, was at the London summit in 2019, but global concerns have rapidly accelerated since then.

Both Mr. Biden and President Donald J. Trump before him put more emphasis on the threats they say China poses, as an authoritarian political system with growing military spending and ambitions, including a budding military cooperation with Russia. China is at the center of Mr. Biden’s assertion that democracies are in an existential confrontation with autocracies.

“The democratic values that undergird our alliance are under increasing pressure, both internally and externally,” the president told reporters Monday evening after the summit meeting. “Russia and China are both seeking to drive a wedge in our trans-Atlantic solidarity.”

In its  communiqué, negotiated by consensus from all 30 members, NATO is cautious in its characterization of China.

Russia is repeatedly described as a “threat” to NATO in the document, with criticisms of the buildup in Russian weaponry, its hacking and disinformation assaults on Western countries, the 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, and other aggressive acts.

By contrast, China is described as presenting “challenges.” But those challenges are considerable. The NATO secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has said China now has the second-largest military budget after the United States and the world’s largest navy. Beijing is strengthening its nuclear stockpile and developing more sophisticated missiles and ships.

“China is not our adversary, but the balance of power is shifting,’’ Mr. Stoltenberg said on Monday. “And China is coming closer to us. We see them in cyberspace, we see China in Africa, but we also see China investing heavily in our own critical infrastructure,” he said. “We need to respond together as an alliance.”

China has sent ships into the Mediterranean and through the Arctic; it has also conducted military exercises with Russia in NATO’s backyard, built bases in Africa, and owns significant infrastructure in Europe, including the Greek port of Piraeus.

China’s army has hacked computers to steal industrial and military secrets all over the globe and engaged in disinformation in NATO societies. And with its effort to deploy 5G networks across Africa, the Middle East and Europe, Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, has created new anxiety that it could control the communications infrastructure needed by NATO.

In a discussion of “multifaceted threats” and “systemic competition from assertive and authoritarian powers” in the communiqué, NATO says that “Russia’s aggressive actions constitute a threat to Euro-Atlantic security.” While China is not called a threat, NATO states that “China’s growing influence and international policies can present challenges that we need to address together as an alliance.”

NATO promised to “engage China with a view to defending the security interests of the alliance’’ and said it planned to increase partnerships with more countries in the Indo-Pacific.

Much further into the document, China comes up again, described as presenting “systemic challenges” to the “rules-based international order.”

In a gesture toward diplomacy and engagement, the alliance vows to maintain “a constructive dialogue with China where possible,” including on the issue of climate change, and calls for China to become more transparent about its military and especially its “nuclear capabilities and doctrine.”

Chinese officials reacted sharply to the NATO communiqué, as they have to other statements from G7 leaders made in the previous days. The alliance’s characterization of the challenges posed by China was “a slander of China’s peaceful development, a misjudgment of the international situation and its own role, and a continuation of the Cold War mentality,” the country’s mission to the European Union in Brussels said in a post on Weibo.

NATO leaders on Monday also agreed to spend next year updating the alliance’s 2010 strategic concept, which 11 years ago viewed Russia as a potential partner and never mentioned China.

New challenges from cyberwarfare, artificial intelligence and disinformation, as well as new missile and warhead technologies, must be considered to preserve deterrence, the alliance said. And Article 5 of its founding treaty — an attack on one is an attack on all — will be “clarified” to include threats to satellites in space and coordinated cyberattacks.

This NATO meeting was mostly a warm embrace of President Biden, who in contrast to his predecessor has expressed deep belief in the alliance and in the importance of American participation in the multilateral institutions Washington established after the horrors of World War II.

The contrast to Mr. Trump’s May 2017 NATO summit was remarked on by many other leaders. Then, Mr. Trump was particularly angered by the expense and lavish use of glass in NATO’s new $1.2 billion headquarters. Mr. Trump also defied the expectations of even his own aides and refused to announce support for NATO’s Article 5, a central tenet of collective defense.

Mr. Biden quickly declared Monday that the alliance is “critically important for U.S. interests” and called Article 5 a “sacred obligation.” He added: “I just want all of Europe to know that the United States is there.”

[Ag with kids 581]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Maybe Mr. Cruz could answer that one.....it would help if there were ambassadors to communicate with other countries and advocate for US interests.

 

 

 

 

@Ag with kids this is the gun control thread below:

There are several threads to discuss conservative spending policy:

There are lots of topics about policy in which to discuss one's position and perspective.

Thank you.  Those are kind of hard to find since they were from years ago when this place wasn't BODU...

[Ag with kids 581]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

It’s how posters who troll are greeted.

Oh...yeah.  Actually responding and putting out positions that you disagree with is trolling.

Well, have a happy life in your hobbit hole that doesn't allow any kind of dissent from your views...

[DDD Dad 14243]

Oh...yeah.  Actually responding and putting out positions that you disagree with is trolling.
Well, have a happy life in your hobbit hole that doesn't allow any kind of dissent from your views...

I have refrained from negging you but you seem to be asking for it.

[staboner 4956]

ya'll homies be cool now. hope you can clear No Car Saturday like i did.

[Ag with kids 581]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

What’s the business case to restrict the selling of armored tanks to citizens? You don’t have to be specific, just let me know you’re in the general fucking ballpark of understanding the goddamn issue 

Answer my question first..

Replying to a question with a demand that another question be answered is poor form.

[DDD Dad 14243]

Answer my question first..
Replying to a question with a demand that another question be answered is poor form.

Ironic post is ironic.

[Ag with kids 581]

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

You should try being honest and you’ll get some civil discourse. Until you show you can do that then you can fuck right off

I've been honest.  Sorry you don't agree with what I've posted.

But stop being a douchebag and claiming I'm a liar.  That's bullshit.

[cactusflinthead 27594]

18 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Apparently I acquired some free rent property in the head of @cactusflinthead since he dropped 14 neg reps on my posts in just a few minutes...

I guess this is how y'all welcome conservatives to SurlyHorns (a nod to the title of the thread for you slow people)....

There's the fucking door. Use it. Until then it's neg on sight. I don't spend any time thinking about you until you show up again in here. Have another.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

31 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Guns are made expressly to kill people. Cars are not. Explain to me why you or anyone needs a gun. 

Now this is a far left sentiment because it implicitly favors banning and confiscation of all guns.

It's also inaccurate because not all guns are "made expressly to kill people."  That's just dumb.

I'm not in favor of that.  But sensible regulation I am all for.  

[Biff Tannen 45491]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Now this is a far left sentiment because it implicitly favors banning and confiscation of all guns.

It's also inaccurate because not all guns are "made expressly to kill people."  That's just dumb.

I'm not in favor of that.  But sensible regulation I am all for.  

I never claimed to not be far left.

ETA: At least when it comes to guns.  They are tools of the weak, spineless, and fearful.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Biff Tannen

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

I look forward to the day when I, an actual capital L Liberal, am no longer lumped in with the real conservatives whose party left them behind in its wild lurch to the radical right. I miss arguing with people who actually believe something.

Until then, it's gonna be flavor of the week time with all these nutjobs who carry water for the most despicable man to ever hold office.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

27 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Thank you.  Those are kind of hard to find since they were from years ago when this place wasn't BODU...

You are looking at the date the topic was started, not the last post. Believe it or not, many posters across this site have topics that have stretched for years. Even the COVID topic is more than one year old.

Please tell me you darkened the doorstep of Evans long enough to learn how to do a rudimentary search on a computer. Granted, the search engine here on Surly sucks, but those happy librarians there would be so disappointed if you didn't take advantage of their tutorials while you attended.

Pick a topic on one of the threads, expound upon your thoughts with a vow to support your position with background information, logic, and other resources and don't act like a whiny dick and you'll be fine.

Otherwise, yeah, trip-trap trip-trap trip trap. Snip, snap, snout, the tale's told out.

[hobbes2702 12791]

21 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I've been honest.  Sorry you don't agree with what I've posted.

But stop being a douchebag and claiming I'm a liar.  That's bullshit.

Is it? Because I’ve posted your lies multiple times in this thread. I think I posted 6 of your lies in a single post. Apparently you are both stupid and dishonest.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I never claimed to not be far left.

ETA: At least when it comes to guns.  They are tools of the weak, spineless, and fearful.

Eh, there's nothing weak, spineless or fearful about various forms of target shooting, or most hunting for that matter.

I tend to agree on the open carry types, and a lot of the concealed carry types.

But mostly I'm pointing out to AWK that not everything is far left, as he purports.

Edited December 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 45491]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Eh, there's nothing weak, spineless or fearful about various forms of target shooting, or most hunting for that matter.

I tend to agree on the open carry types, and a lot of the concealed carry types.

Yes, shooting guns is fun.  I don't hunt because I don't enjoy taking lives, but I don't judge those that do, at least in most instances (fuck you elephant and similar big game hunters).  That said, I think the world would simply be a better place without guns in the vast majority of societal settings.  The cons FAR outweigh the benefits.

[DDD Dad 14243]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eh, there's nothing weak, spineless or fearful about various forms of target shooting, or most hunting for that matter.

I tend to agree on the open carry types, and a lot of the concealed carry types.

Dammit. Another post I could have written. 
 

spidermen.gif

[Sawbonz 27392]

2 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Cars that can go 190+ are dumb af...like Corvettes, etc.

Doesn't mean they should be banned.

So what if I want a 100 round drum (I don't currently).

What's the business case to restrict them to 30 rounds?  Be specific.

Do you think we should be able to buy machine guns at academy? How about  grenade launchers and C4?

[Sawbonz 27392]

53 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I've been honest.  Sorry you don't agree with what I've posted.

But stop being a douchebag and claiming I'm a liar.  That's bullshit.

Your lies have been pointed out multiple times in this thread. Your persisting in saying you are being honest doesn’t make those lies true. I know it works on you when the current GOP leaders do it, but it doesn’t fly here

[Neonmoon 38127]

3 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Cars that can go 190+ are dumb af...like Corvettes, etc.

Doesn't mean they should be banned.

So what if I want a 100 round drum (I don't currently).

What's the business case to restrict them to 30 rounds?  Be specific.

 

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

What’s the business case to restrict the selling of armored tanks to citizens? You don’t have to be specific, just let me know you’re in the general fucking ballpark of understanding the goddamn issue 

 

1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

Answer my question first..

Replying to a question with a demand that another question be answered is poor form.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2758008

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-mass-shootings/banning-large-capacity-gun-magazines-could-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-study-idUSKBN1Y02KY

 

Quote

“Every time gunmen are forced to pause their attacks in order to reload magazines - something that will occur with greater frequency if magazines have a maximum capacity of 10 bullets as opposed to 30, 50, or 100 bullets - it creates such an opportunity, which provides those in harm’s way with the precious seconds they need to take life-saving actions,” Klarevas told Reuters Health by email.

 

Klarevas and colleagues analyzed state data from 1990-2017 on high-fatality mass shootings, i.e., resulting in 6 or more deaths.

During the study period, there were 69 high-fatality mass shootings, including 44, or 64%, involving large-capacity magazines. The average number of deaths was 12 in shootings involving large-capacity magazines, compared to an average of 7 deaths per shooting without large-capacity magazines.

The business case is saving lives. More lives are saved by restricting them. 
 

Now please, by all means, tell me your argument against saving lives 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

Now please, by all means, tell me your argument against saving lives 

See the MTG thread.  Their plan is to downplay the value of human life outside the womb.

[Ag with kids 581]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

I have refrained from negging you but you seem to be asking for it.

I'm sorry...I just got frustrated that ANY attempt at actual discourse is met with attacks.

You haven't been that way so I apologize for my response.

[hobbes2702 12791]

2 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I'm sorry...I just got frustrated that ANY attempt at actual discourse is met with attacks.

You haven't been that way so I apologize for my response.

Attempts at discourse don’t contain lies.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

I was going to point out how above Brisket discussed all of AKW's "policy issues" and was met with no response, but it seems he is gone.

[Anastasis 23390]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Do you think we should be able to buy machine guns at academy? How about  grenade launchers and C4?

Suppressors? Yes. Select fire? No. Grenade Launchers and C4? Maybe. 

[Sawbonz 27392]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Suppressors? Yes. Select fire? No. Grenade Launchers and C4? Maybe. 

What is the rationale for govt being able to restrict purchases of select fire but not semi automatic handguns or long guns?

[bolverk 29394]

22 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Attempts at discourse don’t contain lies.

That's what draws my ire in these threads. Don't lie, and you won't get neg from me the vast majority of the time, excluding obvious/blatant/disruptive trolling, outright racism, and Covid denial/antivaxxer shit.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

What is the rationale for govt being able to restrict purchases of select fire but not semi automatic handguns or long guns?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/

In other words, nonsense, but I think the 2A maniacs have better sense than to challenge it.

Edited December 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23390]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

What is the rationale for govt being able to restrict purchases of select fire but not semi automatic handguns or long guns?

Not a very strong one.  But I would be willing to concede the status quo. 

Suppressors on the other hand should require no more than a standard NICS check, if that. 

[Ag with kids 581]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I never claimed to not be far left.

ETA: At least when it comes to guns.  They are tools of the weak, spineless, and fearful.

Have you ever used any kind of weapon?

Or are you just the weak, spineless, and fearful that doesn't have a clue about them?

[Anastasis 23390]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/

Is this right?

In reality, the district court judge was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would surely be a victory because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.[2] [3]

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4]

 

There was literally no one arguing against the state at the Supreme Court in this case?

[Sawbonz 27392]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Not a very strong one.  But I would be willing to concede the status quo. 

Suppressors on the other hand should require no more than a standard NICS check, if that. 

My point is pretty much everybody except hard-core nuts are OK with some degree of limits on the right to bear arms. The argument is where to draw the line. Most of the people sticking to the protect the second amendment at all costs angle to justify their continued support of the Republican Party are full of shit

[Ag with kids 581]

38 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Attempts at discourse don’t contain lies.

Then stop lying, asshole.

[Anastasis 23390]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

My point is pretty much everybody except hard-core nuts are OK with some degree of limits on the right to bear arms. The argument is where to draw the line. Most of the people sticking to the protect the second amendment at all costs angle to justify their continued support of the Republican Party are full of shit

People on both sides have been conditioned to give no inch lest the mile across a variety of topics. 

[hobbes2702 12791]

Just now, Ag with kids said:

Then stop lying, asshole.

Yea see it’s really easy for people to see all the lies you’ve posted in this thread. I actually consolidated them a few pages back. 

[hobbes2702 12791]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

People on both sides have been conditioned to give no inch lest the mile across a variety of topics. 

Forgive my ignorance here, I assume the reason for lax regulations on suppressors is that they improve safety? I only own a couple pistols and a shotgun so definitely not an expert on rifles.

Edit: this wasn’t the post I meant to quote, meant to quote yours about suppressors.

Edited December 5, 2021 by hobbes2702

[Sawbonz 27392]

4 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Then stop lying, asshole.

You first

[Sawbonz 27392]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

People on both sides have been conditioned to give no inch lest the mile across a variety of topics. 

Cool except on this topic, one side’s  intransigence literally contributes to mass murders

[TwiceHorn 31240]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Is this right?

In reality, the district court judge was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would surely be a victory because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.[2] [3]

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4]

 

There was literally no one arguing against the state at the Supreme Court in this case?

Don't know about the rest of it, but yes, no brief and no oral argument by the defendant.

The Supreme Court apparently took it as an "unconstitutional as applied" case, pertaining to a sawed-off 12 gauge and ignored the part of the statute that pertained to machine guns.

Its rationale, as you can see, is that sawed-off shotguns are not typical "military weapons" so fall out of the purview of the Second Amendment.  Which would seem to mean that the machine guns prohibited by the statute do fall within the purview of the Second Amendment, and would render that portion of the statute unconstitutional.

Scalia tried to reconcile and extend Miller, one of the few 2A decisions, in Heller, and that's why it's such a bloody fucking mess.

Edited December 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23390]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Forgive my ignorance here, I assume the reason for lax regulations on suppressors is that they improve safety? I only own a couple pistols and a shotgun so definitely not an expert on rifles.

The classification of suppressors as NFA items in this country is stupid. They are treated the same way that a select fire weapon in. In Europe they take a totally different approach, recognizing that the use of a suppressor is a hearing protection issues, shit it's considered rude not to use one. They are basically sold over the counter. Here you have to jump through a series of hoops and tax stamps. 

[hobbes2702 12791]

Just now, Anastasis said:

The classification of suppressors as NFA items in this country is stupid. They are treated the same way that a select fire weapon in. In Europe they take a totally different approach, recognizing that the use of a suppressor is a hearing protection issues, shit it's considered rude not to use one. They are basically sold over the counter. Here you have to jump through a series of hoops and tax stamps. 

That’s what I thought. Thank you for the response.