After Donald becomes president, what happens next? - Page 11 - Kawasaki Versys Forum
Off Topic Discussions For all of your off topic talk and just general B.S. Jokes, funny stories, etc...

 155Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #201 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-11-2016, 03:32 PM
Member
 
saddlebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray h View Post
I actually watch MSNBC more. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
The more I see the more I think it will be Trump and Sanders running.
MSNBC was very quiet on the subject up until about a month ago, they have become more and more vocal about it recently.
I predict the end of June all hell will break loose on the democratic side after the FBI calls Clinton to testify.
It will get interesting. We know what to expect with a Trump/Clinton match, mud slinging, in the trenches.
Trump/Sanders match will have to be different. Sanders is probably the most honest and true candidate running, but he is a socialist and as far left as even the most liberal will go. It'll be different.
All the Congress people are who they represent. Sanders is very liberal because that plays well in Vermont. On the issue of guns he's not so liberal because that doesn't play so well.
If you don't represent the people who elect you, you won't be re-elected. Everyone hates Congress, but no one hates their Congress people. It's always the other guy who's the problem.
MSNBC is very middle of the road. Anyone who's been too liberal has been fired from there. They are mild center left much like Clinton. In fact, if you saw my test score, there was barely any difference in the percentages I agreed with Clinton or Kaisch because they are both centrists and neither support extremist ideals of either sort. Can't think of an extremist regime anywhere that's been very successful.
saddlebag is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #202 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-11-2016, 03:38 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
Speak fer yourself. My body's barely able to move some days.



Of course for the people. Only people can have rights. And rights are bestowed by govt's. They can give you the right to smoke weed or they can put you in jail for it.
In any case, the people were not given rights to bear arms to eat pie, but to form militias that were necessary at a time before we spent a trillion bucks a year or so on national defense.
And they were given regarding "arms" long before they could kill dozens of people in the blink of an eye.



No, because it's the act of speech, not the tool to store or broadcast it that's given special status. Having said that, the first amendment was given to permit the free exchange of political ideas. The kind that Joe McCarthy and his student Ted Cruz would have you punished or banished for engaging.
The gov't can still put you in jail for threatening speech, fraudulent speech, speech that incites violence etc.



Because even back then, those weren't the only tools for killing. To suggest they had storing an ICBM complete with a nuclear warhead in the backyard is a little far fetched.



This is where conservative ideology breaks down completely. They would like everyone to think that Obama is such a guy. Based on what, no one is certain. But the fact is, he was legally elected, has done nothing to limit anyone's freedom of speech or gun rights or anything else.
That argument would have merit if someone like Saddam decided to attack us, disband our gov't and implement Sharia law, but not because someone got elected with whom you have a difference of opinion over policy. And if we didn't have a trillion dollar a year military at our disposal to engage him, but we do. We don't need to arm psychotics with machine guns, despite your desire to live like it's 1776.
And anyway, running over other countries and making them do things our way is our job...when pubs are in office anyway.
Rights are not given by government but are innate, given by God if you are so inclined. The constitution only inumerates some of those rights.
waltermitty is offline  
post #203 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-11-2016, 07:31 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Waynesboro PA
Posts: 1,097
I've finally got a reason to vote for Clinton........
She says if she is elected she is going to release classified documents from Area 51.
I wonder if she thinks this move will get her the uneducated white male vote? If that's the case she could be on to something.
Or maybe that information is in her email and she knows it'll be coming out anyway.

STUPID IS THE NEW NORMAL
ray h is offline  
post #204 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-11-2016, 08:57 PM
Member
 
Fly-Sig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
This is kinda beside the point. Who is arguing to banish guns? There is a difference between banning guns and regulating arms. The latter is a big part of the State Dept's job.
Which circles back to my original question, what is your definition of
"shall not be infringed"?

Because that is the very specific restriction placed on the government. They, the government shall not infringe this right to keep and bear arms.

Is "regulation" infringement? According to every single source I can find, the meaning of the word "infringe" has not changed in the last 3 centuries. The meaning is to encroach upon even the edges. Unless you can provide an alternative authoritative definition which means something different, the 2A reads to me that the government may not in any way, even around the edges, tread upon any person's right to keep and bear arms.

Furthermore, the words "keep and bear" and "arms" are wide open without restrictive modifiers. It does not say "keep and bear in their homes" or "keep and bear sporting arms". Thus, absent any clear contemporaneous sources to the contrary, the 2A in fact does protect the right to keep and bear any arms at any time in any place.
Fly-Sig is offline  
post #205 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-11-2016, 09:18 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
Which circles back to my original question, what is your definition of
"shall not be infringed"?

Because that is the very specific restriction placed on the government. They, the government shall not infringe this right to keep and bear arms.

Is "regulation" infringement? According to every single source I can find, the meaning of the word "infringe" has not changed in the last 3 centuries. The meaning is to encroach upon even the edges. Unless you can provide an alternative authoritative definition which means something different, the 2A reads to me that the government may not in any way, even around the edges, tread upon any person's right to keep and bear arms.

Furthermore, the words "keep and bear" and "arms" are wide open without restrictive modifiers. It does not say "keep and bear in their homes" or "keep and bear sporting arms". Thus, absent any clear contemporaneous sources to the contrary, the 2A in fact does protect the right to keep and bear any arms at any time in any place.
Actually, no. The Federalist Papers states that the "arms" are the weapons that would normally be carried by a foot soldier so no crew served weapons such as canons or nukes.
waltermitty is offline  
post #206 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-11-2016, 09:53 PM
Member
 
Fly-Sig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
Of course for the people. Only people can have rights. And rights are bestowed by govt's. They can give you the right to smoke weed or they can put you in jail for it.
You are mixing together two different concepts, rights vs privileges. Rights exist regardless of whether a government recognizes it. Humans have the right not to be enslaved, raped, tortured, or murdered. Yet in the USSR, Mao's China, and any number of other current or past examples people indeed were horribly abused by their governments. Did the Jews in Nazi Germany have the right not to be murdered? Do political prisoners in China have the right not to have their organs harvested without their consent?

But there are many privileges bestowed by government. We have the privilege of operating motor vehicles on publicly maintained roadways, as long as we comply with limitations and requirements placed upon us by the granting authority.

The Declaration of Independence spoke to this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Creator, whether it be one's God or Nature, endows each person at creation with certain rights which are inalienable, meaning those rights cannot be removed by anyone even if they are prohibited by force. Governments are constituted by The People in order to protect these rights. The prime, and really the only legitimate, purpose of government is to protect the basic rights of the citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
In any case, the people were not given rights to bear arms to eat pie, but to form militias that were necessary at a time before we spent a trillion bucks a year or so on national defense.
And they were given regarding "arms" long before they could kill dozens of people in the blink of an eye.
No, the people were not given a right to form militias. The people have the right to self defense as a function of existing. Just like the animal in the forest has the right to defend their life, humans have an inherent right to defend against physical harm or enslavement. Self defense requires access to whatever tools or methods are available, which means "arms". Thus there is a natural right to possess arms. The 2A protects this right by prohibiting the government from restricting the ability to defend oneself. As the government was rightly considered the greatest threat to personal liberty, it would make no sense for the government to be allowed to be the arbiter of what is permitted in the way of RKBA.

Governments have killed hundreds of millions of humans in the last century, far more than criminals or individual nutjobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
No, because it's the act of speech, not the tool to store or broadcast it that's given special status. Having said that, the first amendment was given to permit the free exchange of political ideas. The kind that Joe McCarthy and his student Ted Cruz would have you punished or banished for engaging.
Right, what is protected by the 2A is the act of keeping and the act of bearing. The tool is not protected, it is the possession of it and the access to it which is protected

Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
The gov't can still put you in jail for threatening speech, fraudulent speech, speech that incites violence etc.
Again, also correct wrt keeping and bearing arms. One may not harm others without justification. There is no right to yell fire in a crowded theater if your intent is to incite panic. You are doing harm. But you do have the right to yell fire in the theater if you believe there is in fact a fire. Speech is defined as the communication of facts, beliefs, and opinions. Speech as covered in the 1A does not include intentionally harmful acts such as slander (which is saying false information) or inciting panic in a theater (also involves false information and does not contain a belief or opinion).

Your RKBA does not include armed robbery or poaching deer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
Because even back then, those weren't the only tools for killing. To suggest they had storing an ICBM complete with a nuclear warhead in the backyard is a little far fetched.
All the writings of the Founders indicate they intended every imaginable weapon to be covered by the 2A. Tenche Cox very eloquently stated "all the terrible implements of war". Until the 2A is modified via Constitutional amendment it continues to mean what it says, which is all arms.

If you agree to restrict the 2A to some subset of modern arms, I promise you the same logic will be used to restrict your 1A rights. Are you a Mormon? Sorry, Mormons didn't exist during revolutionary times. Like to use your computer to post on the internet? Sorry, that's not protected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
This is where conservative ideology breaks down completely. They would like everyone to think that Obama is such a guy. Based on what, no one is certain. But the fact is, he was legally elected, has done nothing to limit anyone's freedom of speech or gun rights or anything else.
That argument would have merit if someone like Saddam decided to attack us, disband our gov't and implement Sharia law, but not because someone got elected with whom you have a difference of opinion over policy. And if we didn't have a trillion dollar a year military at our disposal to engage him, but we do. We don't need to arm psychotics with machine guns, despite your desire to live like it's 1776.
Obama and many D's in the federal government have indeed increased restrictions on RKBA over the last 7 years.

But that is besides the point. I personally have never met nor have I ever come across any writings, videos, etc of any 2A proponent, any Republican, any Tea Party member, or any conservative who wants to or advocates shooting any government official currently. Everyone sees the 2A as the ejection seat, the last option which should be avoided unless there is no other choice.

But, an armed populace is indeed a good deterrent to an aspiring tyrant. The first thing they do when they gain power is disarm their opposition. The 2A prevents that disarming. And I would bet it has deterred some from seeking political power.

"We" don't arm psychotics. Many of them steal weapons or otherwise illegally obtain them. Almost every single mass public shooting has occurred in a location which prohibits lawful gun possession.
ray h likes this.
Fly-Sig is offline  
post #207 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-11-2016, 10:09 PM
Member
 
Fly-Sig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
This is kinda beside the point. Who is arguing to banish guns? There is a difference between banning guns and regulating arms.
Plenty of people with power and/or vast wealth are pushing for everything from banning whole classes of guns to banning virtually every gun.

No gun control restriction is ever enough for those people. And, to repeat, they are people with great power and wealth. Senators, Presidents, billionaires, celebrities, federal court judges, etc.

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" - Senator Diane Feinstein

First it was ban new machine guns. Then it was require background checks, then restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds, then prohibit certain cosmetic features, then require a "sporting use" or else ban it. Now there's talk of universal background checks, registration, banning semi-auto rifles and shotguns, Australian style gun bans, etc etc etc.

I personally don't trust anyone in power to be looking out for anything but their own power and wealth. There is no history of benevolence in the world of gun control.
ray h and BLACK DOG like this.
Fly-Sig is offline  
post #208 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-11-2016, 10:16 PM
Member
 
Fly-Sig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltermitty View Post
Actually, no. The Federalist Papers states that the "arms" are the weapons that would normally be carried by a foot soldier so no crew served weapons such as canons or nukes.
There are a variety of sources which say at the very least it encompasses personal arms which a soldier would use in battle. Some quotes are wider, such as Tenche Cox's "all the terrible implements of war". Historically we know that citizens brought their privately owned artillery and warships to battle before, during, and after the Revolutionary War.

In any case, the current "sporting use" test is the 180 degree opposite from the intent of protecting a right to military grade arms.
Fly-Sig is offline  
post #209 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 12:44 AM
Member
 
chadams66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Garden Home, Oregon
Posts: 1,106
the 2nd Bill of Rights..heartily opposed by a political group/party...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4

and there are those that thought this party cared about the common guy..lol...that wasn't dumb enough..now a lot of those easily led/fooled are behind a billionarie..who lies..changes his mind on an hourly basis..."fool me once..ahh..errr..can't be fooled again"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

Last edited by chadams66; 05-12-2016 at 12:48 AM.
chadams66 is offline  
post #210 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 03:46 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Waynesboro PA
Posts: 1,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadams66 View Post
the 2nd bill of rights..heartily opposed by a political group/party...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/second_bill_of_rights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ez5bx9ayi4

and there are those that thought this party cared about the common guy..lol...that wasn't dumb enough..now a lot of those easily led/fooled are behind a billionarie..who lies..changes his mind on an hourly basis..."fool me once..ahh..errr..can't be fooled again"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekgpy1adc0a
trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016

STUPID IS THE NEW NORMAL
ray h is offline  
post #211 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 04:30 AM
Super Moderator
 
kiwi 41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: 44.24'S 171.15'E Timaru, NewZealand
Posts: 8,541
Send a message via Skype™ to kiwi 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray h View Post
trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016 trump 2016, trump 2016
So whats trump doing in 2016?

Last edited by kiwi 41; 05-12-2016 at 07:01 AM.
kiwi 41 is offline  
post #212 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 06:19 AM
Member
 
saddlebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltermitty View Post
Rights are not given by government but are innate, given by God if you are so inclined. The constitution only inumerates some of those rights.
Poppycock. Tell it to the cop next time you get caught paying a hooker for sex about how gov't has no right over your dick. If they can impeach a president over it, you better believe they trump God's will over such matters. Never mind that God is a fictional, invisible man who lives in the sky and has no power over anything. The gov't has guns, they do.
saddlebag is offline  
post #213 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 06:23 AM
Member
 
saddlebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray h View Post
I've finally got a reason to vote for Clinton........
She says if she is elected she is going to release classified documents from Area 51.
I wonder if she thinks this move will get her the uneducated white male vote? If that's the case she could be on to something.
Or maybe that information is in her email and she knows it'll be coming out anyway.
You really think you can handle the truth? How are you going to feel when you find out a Martian mated with an orangutan to create your favorite presidential candidate?

Last edited by saddlebag; 05-12-2016 at 07:05 AM.
saddlebag is offline  
post #214 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 06:48 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
Poppycock. Tell it to the cop next time you get caught paying a hooker for sex about how gov't has no right over your dick. If they can impeach a president over it, you better believe they trump God's will over such matters. Never mind that God is a fictional, invisible man who lives in the sky and has no power over anything. The gov't has guns, they do.

I'm an atheist and an ex-bail bondsman, you are preaching to the choir.
saddlebag likes this.
waltermitty is offline  
post #215 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 07:00 AM
Member
 
saddlebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
You are mixing together two different concepts, rights vs privileges.
Bully for semantics. If the gov't allows people to do something, they can do it. If they don't, they'll get thrown in the clink. I get the theatrics with which people read documents of old, but regardless, that's the reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
Rights exist regardless of whether a government recognizes it. Humans have the right not to be enslaved, raped, tortured, or murdered. Yet in the USSR, Mao's China, and any number of other current or past examples people indeed were horribly abused by their governments.
USSR, Mao? Why look there? The people who wrote the founding documents were slave owners. How's that for your inalienable human rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
But there are many privileges bestowed by government. We have the privilege of operating motor vehicles on publicly maintained roadways, as long as we comply with limitations and requirements placed upon us by the granting authority.
Actually, if you like to watch the Youtube, there's some entertaining vids of people screwing with cops over issues such as their right to travel unimpeded. I actually saw one where the guy supposedly got away with not having to register his car by being obstinate about it. I don't know if it's worth the $40 bucks to fuss over, but it was interesting to watch him do his thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
The Declaration of Independence spoke to this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Yes, for a group of govies and lawyers, many of the founders were apt to speak in flowery language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
The prime, and really the only legitimate, purpose of government is to protect the basic rights of the citizens.
Tell it to the police who are kicking loudmouth protesters, exercising
their *right* to free speech, out of Trump rallies all about their primary purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
No, the people were not given a right to form militias. The people have the right to self defense as a function of existing.
There are definitely instance of this on which I'd agree with you. But if you're black and punch a cop in self defense, chances are you'll end up dead and devoid of *rights* from on high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
Just like the animal in the forest has the right to defend their life, humans have an inherent right to defend against physical harm or enslavement. Self defense requires access to whatever tools or methods are available, which means "arms".
This is just getting sillier and sillier. Animals don't have rights to tools of death, let alone WMD. Nor do they have courts of law to administer justice. When my cat snatches a bird out of the air and bats it around until it dies, the bird is just dead. God didn't bestow it any rights to happiness and my cat gets off scot free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
Right, what is protected by the 2A is the act of keeping and the act of bearing. The tool is not protected, it is the possession of it and the access to it which is protected
You can believe that if you like, but the Supreme Court disagrees and their interpretation is the one that counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
All the writings of the Founders indicate they intended every imaginable weapon to be covered by the 2A. Tenche Cox very eloquently stated "all the terrible implements of war". Until the 2A is modified via Constitutional amendment it continues to mean what it says, which is all arms.
If this is some reason to hang your hat on the Laissez Faire right to bear arms, then I'd suggest you go get your law degree, campaign of a job as a federal judge, and work your way onto the Supreme Court where if a relevant case comes before you, you can use this to defend your position. As it is, there are mountains of laws regarding bearing arms. Get over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
If you agree to restrict the 2A to some subset of modern arms, I promise you the same logic will be used to restrict your 1A rights. Are you a Mormon? Sorry, Mormons didn't exist during revolutionary times. Like to use your computer to post on the internet? Sorry, that's not protected.
Again, you're talking about a right to speak versus owning killing machines. Sorry, there's a very different potential harm to your fellow citizens in the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
Obama and many D's in the federal government have indeed increased restrictions on RKBA over the last 7 years.
I don't know what this means, but if you want others to believe it, cite a legitimate example along with it's source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
But that is besides the point. I personally have never met nor have I ever come across any writings, videos, etc of any 2A proponent, any Republican, any Tea Party member, or any conservative who wants to or advocates shooting any government official currently.
Google James Yeager. Read all about the small army of people with rifles he amassed by ranting and raving on Youtube. Look at the people who defended the grazing thief in Utah and later took over a federal facility in Oregon. Read all about the right wing militias and white supremacists across the country just itching to start a civil war because they don't like having a black president. I assure you, those people are really out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
Everyone sees the 2A as the ejection seat, the last option which should be avoided unless there is no other choice.
Actually, they ought to consider it a lunatic fantasy. If after paying all this tax to support the biggest, most expensive military on the planet, if I have to grab a gun and hop around the country shooting random people, I'm gonna be pissed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
"We" don't arm psychotics. Many of them steal weapons or otherwise illegally obtain them. Almost every single mass public shooting has occurred in a location which prohibits lawful gun possession.
You are the one arguing that arms are a *right*. If that's some fancy thing floated down from heaven, then it applies to loons as much as anyone else. If you think gov't should be able to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, then you are as much for gov't regulation of arms as anyone else. Hence your differences with even the most gun hating liberal are only a matter of degree, not kind.
saddlebag is offline  
post #216 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 07:06 AM
Member
 
saddlebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi 41 View Post
So whats trump doing in 2016?
Takes away the rights of Mexican and Muslim Americans. Probably won't be very nice to fat, ugly women either.
saddlebag is offline  
post #217 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 07:15 AM
Member
 
saddlebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly-Sig View Post
Now there's talk of universal background checks,
At the very least, if you don't believe people with mental illness should have access to WMD, then you should be okay with this. As far as I know, closing this loophole has been about the only real proposal suggested by Obama, who has the unenviable task of addressing routine mass killings.
Perhaps Obama should give that job to gun nuts. Maybe at least a few of them might have the empathy to get it. Those without empathy are called psychopaths and probably shouldn't have guns to begin with...
saddlebag is offline  
post #218 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 07:17 AM
Member
 
fpgt72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
Takes away the rights of Mexican and Muslim Americans. Probably won't be very nice to fat, ugly women either.
And just what has he done to do that....or are you just spouting what you have been told to spout.

And to add...I doubt Mexican Americans have nothing to worry about...it is the Mexican Mexicans that have to worry. I have a hope that he will deport those in the country that are illegal.

Muslim Americans....same deal, pay your taxes, go to work, don't tell the Citadel to change its uniform policy and you will be just fine...in other words, become an AMERICAN. Fly your mexican flag above the american one in america and you will have issues, and don't blow anything up or shoot anyone and you will have no problems.

I await for you to bring up Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczensky, or any of the other nut jobs out there that are american....there is however a difference between those people and boko haram type guys....however people like you are too narrow sighted to see that and those reasons do not fit into the new world the big O' and hilldog want to put on us.

Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant'
is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
fpgt72 is offline  
post #219 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 08:00 AM
Member
 
saddlebag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by fpgt72 View Post
And just what has he done to do that....or are you just spouting what you have been told to spout.

And to add...I doubt Mexican Americans have nothing to worry about...it is the Mexican Mexicans that have to worry. I have a hope that he will deport those in the country that are illegal.
How do you suppose you can do that without randomly hassling brown people to find out who's who?
You are overly concerned that citizens have to show paperwork that validates they are legally qualified to have a gun, should they happen to buy one. Why aren't you equally ticked that Mexican Americans who are just going about their lives are routinely hassled to prove the don't deserve to be deported?
Your priority of protecting *rights* seem skewed to toys over people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fpgt72 View Post
Muslim Americans....same deal, pay your taxes, go to work, don't tell the Citadel to change its uniform policy and you will be just fine...in other words, become an AMERICAN.
Unless they happen to be on vacation and want to return home...
saddlebag is offline  
post #220 of 763 (permalink) Old 05-12-2016, 09:21 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Waynesboro PA
Posts: 1,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by saddlebag View Post
You really think you can handle the truth? How are you going to feel when you find out a Martian mated with an orangutan to create your favorite presidential candidate?
And I think YOU are that martian.

STUPID IS THE NEW NORMAL

Last edited by ray h; 05-12-2016 at 10:02 AM.
ray h is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Kawasaki Versys Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome