destruction of america

[datzenmike]

I know where your going but what is the 2nd amendment as it is today? Because if it what I posted then it is different.

[Draker]

37 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

Beats me but from the previous posts everyone is convinced the Dems are going to do it.

they’ve already outright stated they would. 

[datzenmike]

Meh, it's only an assault rifle. Plenty of others.

[Draker]

26 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

Meh, it's only an assault rifle. Plenty of others.

We’ll just make a gun sanctuary. See how that works?

[frankendat]

6 hours ago, datzenmike said:

How is an assault weapon ban stripping you of your guns???

 

If you see a gun owning neighbor who you don't get along with and has threatened you in the past, going off the deep end, wouldn't you want him separated from his weapons? Or are you saying that people could file a false claim against you??? Maybe a thorough and extensive mental evaluation should be part of getting a gun license. Can't see a gun owner planning a criminal act that would result in loss of his right to own them. The cost of owning guns should be excessively high. Weeds out all the flakes. If it cost you $7 or $8K to own a gun you might be more careful what you do with it. You don't go drifting your new 400Z

 

 

 

Wow, disregard for Constitution, acceptance of the dynamic term assault weapon, attempt to muddle the discussion by suggesting freedom should be predicated on need or wealth, misdirection through application of alternative facts, someone has been brushing up on bullshit.

Allow me to retort—

First, rhetoric for rhetoric, I would type it all out, but here is the NRA’s  answer: https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/assault-weapons-large-magazines/

Likely, the link, if you bother, will persuade you as much as your comments persuades me, but  I will not give up, so easily.

The assault weapon ban was troublesome in its original form, because of the methods  defining “assault weapon”.  The new Democrat revised ban,  adds additional ambiguous  terms and it will not deter crime. This is known, by those wanting to bring it back into law and used as an argument for the introduction of provisions  for firearm relinquishment.

As for “Why” a firearm is needed, why is freedom of speech needed? Why is due process needed? A brief look at international news provides a plethora of examples of injustice forced upon the unarmed.

Anyone watching current events  will be bombarded with examples of police failing to uphold law and protect citizenry.  A grim reminder that the best protection for you and your family is competence with a firearm. If you do not recognize that importance, then I wish you,  best of luck.

Addressing the alternative facts hypothetical: The addition of “threatened you in the past”. If someone makes a credible threat of violence against you or your family and you have reason that they are capable of action on that threat. In Idaho, that is the crime of assault (term is often different in other jurisdictions).  A crime that can be litigated and punished IF FOUND GUILTY.  Part of the adulation of crime of violence, even something as minor as assault, is an anger management evaluation.

 Due Process is lost without these provisions. And yes, I believe without Due Process this will be abused.

Social media racing to judgement on every public and private interaction, why would anyone, cede control of their rights to this abyss?

Returning to the alternative facts hypothetical: “…going off the deep end”.  Are you a clinically certified psychologist? Is there EVIDENCE that the neighbor is a danger to themselves or others? Again,  without Due Process this will be abused.

I diverge from some of my compatriots, in that I fear the government more than the home invader and freely admit there are weapons designed for combat. In the NRA link, one of the bullet points is AR-15’s are used for hunting. The Viet Nam era AR- 15’s, in general, lack accuracy for hunting, in the last couple of decades AR- 15’s have been worked into tack drivers (very accurate) but I still wouldn’t hunt anything but ground squirrels  with one. The people who hunt with an AR-15’s are the same who routinely  drive their 300hp Datsun to get groceries, but it their right to do it. The noise surround "assault weapons" is just that noise. One man with a bolt action 30-06, and a little training could be more deadly, than any of these assholes with AR-15's

Edited September 24, 2020 by frankendat

[john510]

9 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

It's a rifle designed to kill as many people as fast as possible. It's particularly effective in a movie theater or a school.

We all know what one is,some people just don't like for it to be called that.This here definition sums it up pretty well.

[bottomwatcher]

17 minutes ago, john510 said:

We all know what one is,some people just don't like for it to be called that.This here definition sums it up pretty well.

Add a bump stock and it doubles its capacity to clear a concert. 

I am not for an assault rifle ban I've got one but the bumpstock serves no useful purpose except aimlessly spraying lead into a crowd. 

[banzai510(hainz)]

Im not in to assault weapons and wish the Chinese stuff entered America as they were to cheap kinda like Datsun owners ,people don't spend money to lock them up and don't care for them meaning leaving them lying around to get stolen.

M14/M1a aren't in the news !!!as those owner have a expensive gun and lock them up in a real safe.

However with all these Riots I change my mind.

 

Plus the Dems got rid of the assult weapons before under Clinton so they will do it again but not put a 20yrs clause.

 

However I will vote Trump.

As Biden will not serve his whole term out as the more I watch the worse he is.

Biden wins the Riots will stop but focus on Left leaning Communist Job Killing ideas Taxes up the ass. which will leave China in the driver seat for job creation .

 

The world will not end if Biden wins but my retirement will loose it value and have to stay working.

 

Last night

Kentucky, a Democratic voter shot 2 cops last night.   No justice No Peace!!!!!!!!!!

Edited September 24, 2020 by banzai510(hainz)

[datzenmike]

6 hours ago, frankendat said:

Wow, disregard for Constitution, acceptance of the dynamic term assault weapon, attempt to muddle the discussion by suggesting freedom should be predicated on need or wealth, misdirection through application of alternative facts, someone has been brushing up on bullshit.

Allow me to retort—

First, rhetoric for rhetoric, I would type it all out, but here is the NRA’s  answer: https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/assault-weapons-large-magazines/

Likely, the link, if you bother, will persuade you as much as your comments persuades me, but  I will not give up, so easily.

The assault weapon ban was troublesome in its original form, because of the methods  defining “assault weapon”.  The new Democrat revised ban,  adds additional ambiguous  terms and it will not deter crime. This is known, by those wanting to bring it back into law and used as an argument for the introduction of provisions  for firearm relinquishment.

As for “Why” a firearm is needed, why is freedom of speech needed? Why is due process needed? A brief look at international news provides a plethora of examples of injustice forced upon the unarmed.

Anyone watching current events  will be bombarded with examples of police failing to uphold law and protect citizenry.  A grim reminder that the best protection for you and your family is competence with a firearm. If you do not recognize that importance, then I wish you,  best of luck.

Addressing the alternative facts hypothetical: The addition of “threatened you in the past”. If someone makes a credible threat of violence against you or your family and you have reason that they are capable of action on that threat. In Idaho, that is the crime of assault (term is often different in other jurisdictions).  A crime that can be litigated and punished IF FOUND GUILTY.  Part of the adulation of crime of violence, even something as minor as assault, is an anger management evaluation.

 Due Process is lost without these provisions. And yes, I believe without Due Process this will be abused.

Social media racing to judgement on every public and private interaction, why would anyone, cede control of their rights to this abyss?

Returning to the alternative facts hypothetical: “…going off the deep end”.  Are you a clinically certified psychologist? Is there EVIDENCE that the neighbor is a danger to themselves or others? Again,  without Due Process this will be abused.

I diverge from some of my compatriots, in that I fear the government more than the home invader and freely admit there are weapons designed for combat. In the NRA link, one of the bullet points is AR-15’s are used for hunting. The Viet Nam era AR- 15’s, in general, lack accuracy for hunting, in the last couple of decades AR- 15’s have been worked into tack drivers (very accurate) but I still wouldn’t hunt anything but ground squirrels  with one. The people who hunt with an AR-15’s are the same who routinely  drive their 300hp Datsun to get groceries, but it their right to do it. The noise surround "assault weapons" is just that noise. One man with a bolt action 30-06, and a little training could be more deadly, than any of these assholes with AR-15's

 

 

My interpretation of the constitution is different than the accepted one. It was worded in a 'flowery' manner from 200 plus ears ago that was clear then but time, guns and circumstances have moved on. I think the author would be appalled if he could see what has happened as a result of what he penned all those years ago. It needs amending to simply "the right of the people to be armed shall not be opposed"  Can't argue with that. If this was possible it would and should be done but impossible now so gun owners cling to the second like a woman hanging on to her panties.

 

Haven't looked at the link because NRA, who could do some good but don't. They are morally corrupt now.

 

Assault weapons... I have no interest one way or the other really. It's your problem and I watch with amusement and trepidation on all gun related  things. 

 

Why guns are needed is circular reasoning. The perception is that apparently armed criminals overwhelm the police who can't protect you so you need guns to protect yourself. May be true but sounds like a justification for the 2nd. There are other countries where gun ownership is NOT so entrenched as the US, and they do alright. Interpretation of the 2wd... can't un-ring that bell.

 

Re: 'threatened you in the past'  Can you trust the system to protect you because (without proof or witnesses)  you alleged that someone threatened you??? Even if 4 or 5 of your neighbors said the same thing it seems to carry no weight. Seems to me it would be easier, cheaper on limited police resources to weed this type of personality out and refuse gun ownership in the first place. But unlikely. By the time there is credible proof it's way too late.  Clinically certified psychologist I'm not (who is?) of course but the litmus test is if you fear for your safety. By the time action can be taken it's often too late and obvious after. Hopefully it was another neighbor and not yourself.

 

 Saying that you are hunting with an 'assault rifle' is like saying you are going fishing with dynamite.

 

[banzai510(hainz)]

we have gun laws however the Democratic states let those people out to commit crime again later.  should be 1 yr manatory sentence. But the Democratic states don't want to lock up to many minorites.  Wish they would apply asylum in Canada once released. China would be better.

I would make it Conceled Carry Permit hilder be legal to buy assault type weapons. they would limit  some morons that just turned 18 to buy them and show off with them and leave them lying around to get stolen.

 

However the 2nd Amendment is only one issue but when seattle just defend the police all these liberal people on Capital Hill and in Seattle get robbed. No need to call the Cops buddy!!!!

 

Boeing moving to S Carolina the 787 production, Columbia Sportswear just announce they moving out of seattle with the 100 outer business doing the same thing. Amazon slowly moving more to the east side of Bellevue. Just a start.  Seattle going to look like Gary Indianna pretty soon.  They voted that way so I guess I shouldn't complain. I don't go there anymore since all the trash at the offramps going into seattle.  The last straw was the Seattle Mayor bringing a Convicted Pimp on the Seattle payroll for 150K$$$$  

Edited September 24, 2020 by banzai510(hainz)

[Jesse C.]

16 hours ago, Draker said:

 

What is an assault weapon?

 

14 hours ago, datzenmike said:

It's a term that really only has general characteristics that not everyone can agree on. Like pornography it can't be defined but you know it when you see it. I like....

 

 

 

An Assault Weapon is a weapon that has a Fully Automatic feature. The AR-15 does not, thus it is a Sporter Rifle. 

 

Automatic Weapons where outlawed to the general populace in 1934, but, they can be owned by anyone as long as certain criteria is passed and your State permits it. 

 

 

 

 

 

[banzai510(hainz)]

heres a NEW one from Seattle

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=whowe+protect+black+criminals#action=view&id=2&vid=c18392ef0ec7ec2fa83fc9d89442210d

 

who we protect?????

Edited September 24, 2020 by banzai510(hainz)

[datzenmike]

1 hour ago, Jesse C. said:

 

 

An Assault Weapon is a weapon that has a Fully Automatic feature. The AR-15 does not, thus it is a Sporter Rifle. 

 

 

 

"That which we call an AR-15 by any other name would still have a 30 round magazine for hunting deer.” ..... Bill Shakespere.

[wayno]

2 hours ago, Jesse C. said:

 

 

An Assault Weapon is a weapon that has a Fully Automatic feature. The AR-15 does not, thus it is a Sporter Rifle. 

 

Automatic Weapons where outlawed to the general populace in 1934, but, they can be owned by anyone as long as certain criteria is passed and your State permits it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can legally own a machine gun if you do complete mock war scenes/reenactments for the public at parks that it really happened at, but you are using blank cartridges, you owned everything including your very expensive uniforms, I almost joined a group that does that sort of thing(they contacted me), that was likely 20+ years ago.

[datzenmike]

I'd like to re-enact Gettysburg with a Thompson

[jagman]

BUT Which side would ya'll be on?

[datzenmike]

The far North.

[jagman]

`As the british said at the second Niagara Canoe Race "Blimey son they are only colonials, pay them no mind."

[MikeRL411]

Depending on a police force to defend you is NOT a valid option !  During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles a truck driver [Denny if I recall] was on his way to rescue a co-worker when he was pulled from his semi a beaten severely.  One of the local TV helicopters hovered over him as an assailant tried to bash him in the head with a cement building block.   There was a police line 2 or so blocks away observing this action.  When asked why they didn't go to Mr Denny's  rescue the police PIO responded that the police have no responsibility to protect individuals, they only served to protect the general function of restoring peace to the neighborhood.  On TV, live!  You are defenseless, only vague peace restoration applies..  And you wonder why there is a run on gun shops when "Peaceful protests" are spontaneously declared [usually against liquor shops to start.]

[MikeRL411]

I  watched the above incident on local NBC channel 4, the helicopter pilot that day was I believe Francis Gary Powers !  He did have a life after the CIA.

[Mattndew76]

I say if the 2nd amendment is up for restriction then we really need to restrict the 1st. Since 200 years ago they had no idea where our ability to share information was headed.

 

I suggest we say anyone with left ideals are now restricted from sharing information. 

[datzenmike]

35 minutes ago, MikeRL411 said:

Depending on a police force to defend you is NOT a valid option !  During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles a truck driver [Denny if I recall] was on his way to rescue a co-worker when he was pulled from his semi a beaten severely.  One of the local TV helicopters hovered over him as an assailant tried to bash him in the head with a cement building block.   There was a police line 2 or so blocks away observing this action.  When asked why they didn't go to Mr Denny's  rescue the police PIO responded that the police have no responsibility to protect individuals, they only served to protect the general function of restoring peace to the neighborhood.  On TV, live!  You are defenseless, only vague peace restoration applies..  And you wonder why there is a run on gun shops when "Peaceful protests" are spontaneously declared [usually against liquor shops to start.]

 

Why waste the paint then?

 

 

[john510]

1 hour ago, MikeRL411 said:

Depending on a police force to defend you is NOT a valid option !  During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles a truck driver [Denny if I recall] was on his way to rescue a co-worker when he was pulled from his semi a beaten severely.  One of the local TV helicopters hovered over him as an assailant tried to bash him in the head with a cement building block.   There was a police line 2 or so blocks away observing this action.  When asked why they didn't go to Mr Denny's  rescue the police PIO responded that the police have no responsibility to protect individuals, they only served to protect the general function of restoring peace to the neighborhood.  On TV, live!  You are defenseless, only vague peace restoration applies..  And you wonder why there is a run on gun shops when "Peaceful protests" are spontaneously declared [usually against liquor shops to start.]

I've always been somewhat anti-gun.Your first sentence is the truth.I did believe we had a police force to protect innocent citizens.My mind has been changed with what i've seen recently.I'm gun shopping ! When politicians have no spine and tell police to back away from criminals (rioters and looters) and let them run wild,FUCK THAT.

53 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

I say if the 2nd amendment is up for restriction then we really need to restrict the 1st. Since 200 years ago they had no idea where our ability to share information was headed.

 

I suggest we say anyone with left ideals are now restricted from sharing information. 

Always thought the 2nd needed to be modified.Not anymore.The 1st should be.The media has a constitutional right to blatantly lie in many cases.Social media is so destructive and has so many buying into ridiculous things.

[Jesse C.]

5 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

"That which we call an AR-15 by any other name would still have a 30 round magazine for hunting deer.” ..... Bill Shakespere.

 

Not everyone is a Dead Eye Sniper like you, and no, AR's are rarely used for hunting, unless it's an AR-10 for Wild Boar hunts. 

 

But you can have a single shot version if it makes you feel safer and less dangerous 

 

[wayno]

This came from one of them watchdog groups, this video has names and tells what a special forces guy thinks is going on.