• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kory said:
Some of those are dumba$$ suggestions. Police are interested in the money that permits/tax stamps require (I.e. suppressors). That’s the bottom line.
Click to expand...
I think several of these make good sense. I've got a friend who is a cop and we've discussed stuff like this in the past. There is no way we can ever eliminate the threat of an evil or insane person to go on a random killing spree with a gun. But we can try to monitor, discover, disclose better the individuals who may pose a higher risk. I also think if available firepower was limited (e.g. reduced round capacity and reduced firing capacity - rounds per second) it would decrease the casualty toll when mass shooting incidents occurred. But with the proliferation of high capacity rapid firing weapons already in circulation... it may be near impossible to implement such measures.
 
Kory said:
Can someone please explain to me what a “high capacity rapid firing weapon” is?
Click to expand...
Ok... I'll give you my perspective. From the factory my shotgun can hold 5 rounds with the plug out and my revolver can hold 6. Over 6 rounds and one round fired per trigger squeeze.
 
ghost said:
Ok... I'll give you my perspective. From the factory my shotgun can hold 5 rounds with the plug out and my revolver can hold 6. Over 6 rounds and one round fired per trigger squeeze.
Click to expand...
I agree. As much as I enjoy my high capacity guns. There is now justification for my bigger magazines other than I like having them for fun. I think ~10 is a good limit.

I also ammunition should be MUCH more expensive.
 
gangstonc said:
I agree. As much as I enjoy my high capacity guns. There is now justification for my bigger magazines other than I like having them for fun. I think ~10 is a good limit.

I also ammunition should be MUCH more expensive.
Click to expand...
Why 10? Why not 1? That’s all you need to hit a target?

And through what means should ammo be more expensive? Taxes? Currently the market dictates the prices as it should.
 
gangstonc said:
I agree. As much as I enjoy my high capacity guns. There is now justification for my bigger magazines other than I like having them for fun. I think ~10 is a good limit.

I also ammunition should be MUCH more expensive.
Click to expand...

And we all know that criminals will abide by the law. What if I get into a gunfight with someone that has 11 rounds and I only have 10 ?
 
I’m going to try not to come across as an arse, but it’s the incredible ignorance of firearms (whether intentional or not) and random thresholds people want to give firearm accessories that confirm to me the vast majority of the public and even our politicians have no business making policy. The examples in the last few pages say enough (minus Evan...he’s quite educated on firearms).

It’s sort of why I don’t give solutions to healthcare. Education. Etc. I am not well versed enough on the topic. The vast majority of the public and our politicians aren’t either. And I don’t want the vast majority of the public making rash, emotionally driven, uneducated decisions when it comes to policy. Leave it to the experts.
 
Kory said:
I’m going to try not to come across as an arse, but it’s the incredible ignorance (whether intentional or not) and random thresholds people want to give firearm accessories that confirm to me the vast majority of the public and even our politicians have no business making policy. The examples in the last few pages say enough.

It’s sort of why I don’t give solutions to healthcare. Education. Etc. I am not well versed enough on the topic. The vast majority of the public isn’t either. And I don’t want the vast majority of the public making rash, emotionally driven, uneducated decisions when it comes to policy. Leave it to the experts.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of the public has the right to go to Walmart without fear. I’m pretty well versed on my safety. You don’t have to be a gun aficionado to want policy change.
 
Kory said:
Why 10? Why not 1? That’s all you need to hit a target?

And through what means should ammo be more expensive? Taxes? Currently the market dictates the prices as it should.
Click to expand...

I don’t care how it gets to be more expensive. I know I can have 500 rounds for my AR shipped to my doorstep and that’s ridiculous.
 
gangstonc said:
Well?

How are you willing to compromise? Your answers put you on the fringe of society, which is fine, but the fringes have to compromise.
Click to expand...
What answers have I given are fringe? Don’t get all salty because I said I think folks less educated on the subject shouldn’t be leading the helm on public policy.

I have said JUST YESTERDAY that we should’ve had mental health experts, public policy experts, law enforcement experts, etc studying this for years. I think red flag laws *could* be a potential solution if they’re not abused. But we have to be careful on Willy Nilly stripping people of their rights.

Arbitrary limits on ammo and magazine capacities are, frankly, stupid. Sorry.
 
Kory said:
What answers have I given are fringe? Don’t get all salty because I said I think folks less educated on the subject shouldn’t be leading the helm on public policy.

I have said JUST YESTERDAY that we should’ve had mental health experts, public policy experts, law enforcement experts, etc studying this for years. I think red flag laws *could* be a potential solution if they’re not abused. But we have to be careful on Willy Nilly stripping people of their rights.

Arbitrary limits on ammo and magazine capacities are, frankly, stupid. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Being so pro gun puts you on the fringe.

This is just as much a public safety issue as a gun rights issue.

Arbitrary limits in other countries is working extremely well.
 
gangstonc said:
Being so pro gun puts you on the fringe.

This is just as much a public safety issue as a gun rights issue.

Arbitrary limits in other countries is working extremely well.
Click to expand...
At this point you’re flinging $hit to a wall and seeing what sticks.

Your ignorance on the subject continues to show.
 
Kory said:
At this point you’re flinging $hit to a wall and seeing what sticks.

Your ignorance on the subject continues to show.
Click to expand...
What about ammunition limits doesn’t work in other countries? Why can’t we follow an Australian model?

And the entire country is ignorant on this because we haven’t done enough. We don’t have experience in trying to fix the problem.
 
Matt said:
This is from his manifesto:


The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is
destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive
burden for future generations. Corporations are heaing the destruction of our environment by
shamelessly over harvesting resources. This has been
a problem for decades. For example, this
phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades
old classic “The Lorax”. Water sheds around the
country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming
and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste
and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl create
s inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how
many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water of
f our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my
short life has led me to believe that the average A
merican isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if
the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The
government is unwilling to tackle these issues
beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration
because more people means a bigger market for their
products. I just want to say that I love the people
of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next
logical step is to decrease the number of people in
America using resources. If we can get rid of enough
people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.




This sounds just like the democrat debates last week.
Click to expand...

Of course you're just selectively quoting a small portion of the manifesto which is likely the shooter's attempt to make his actions palatable to a wider audience than just his white supremacist allies. Can you explain why the shooter said he was going to target Hispanics?

"In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and
his manifesto. This attack is a response to the
Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigator
s, not me. I am simply defending my country from
cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an in
vasion. Some people will think this statement is
hypocritical because of the nearly complete ethnic
and cultural destruction brought to the Native
Americans by our European ancestors, but this just
reinforces my point. The natives didn’t take the
invasion of Europeans seriously, and now what’s lef
t is just a shadow of what was. My motives for this
attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispan
ic community was not my target before I read The
Great Replacement."

I'll refrain from posting more of this sicko's evil. I already provided other salient quotes previously in this thread. The shooter admits in his manifesto that he couldn't bring himself to kill his "fellow Americans" (he doesn't see Hispanics as being American) and that targeting "Americans" would've had a bigger impact.

Do you not understand that the Shooter's argument makes no sense? He's claiming he'll save our Country and protect the environment from pollution by getting Hispanics to leave even though: 1. That's not going to happen. 2. The average longtime American citizen is going to produce a lot more waste and pollution than Hispanics in Mexico (who he also targeted), or Hispanic immigrants that live in densely populated areas in smaller homes, and with more people under one roof. 3. It's contradictory of his premise that he wants to stop race-mixing and to force Americans to live in terroritories divided by race -- what does race-mixing have to do with the environment, and how does splitting up the country by separating people into terroritories by race preserve the country or help the environment?

His argument about the environment is meant to be a red herring and meant to get people like you to ignore his true motive and rationale by presenting a cover story (try as he might, his hatred was so intense he couldn't help but contradict his cover story). He wanted people like you to be deceived and to argue about "was he left or right on the political spectrum" because then it will increase political polarization and create more in-fighting. That's part and parcel of his overall goal. Just like the Christchurch shooter, his ultimate goal is to spark a race war. The claims about the environment aren't sincere -- the Christchurch shooter made a similar argument in his manifesto while slyly admitting that it was actually all about race.

Read the Christchurch manifesto on page 80-82 and around page 30 about left-wing people/anti-fascists

It sickens me to link that, but you need to understand you're an intended target of these sickos' whole plan. They want you to think it was about something other than race so you'll go argue with others, help increase polarization, and hopefully get sympathizers to read their material (which I'm inadvertently contributing to myself) and gain new converts willing to commit more attacks.

Both Christchurch and El Paso were about increasing racial and political tensions in the hope they can create a race war. That's LONG been the guy of devoted white supremacists. Surely you've heard of the Turner Diaries, right? White supremacists have studied the best way to accomplish this goal for a long time. It's what Timothy McVeigh was up to.

Even me explaining this to you or more or less exactly what they want. They're hoping some impressionable young kind will read our debate, get curious, and explore their ideas. They're evil sickos, but they're not stupid. They understand propaganda and how to spread it. Even though we disagree a lot on politics, I still think you're a good guy, Matt. Don't fall for their BS. They want you to be in denial about their ultimate goal, and to spread their content by sparking arguments. They want to get more people to have increasingly polarized thinking and strictly dichotomous opinions about left/right politics and race.

But I think our country is better than that, and I think you are too. Reject this for what it is. White supremacists trying to justify their evil hatred and vile beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top