The Democratic Primaries

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,556
Are you sending me the right video? Biden is like congratulating someone. Yes Biden has some plan about ak 47’s that is built on some legislation from when they addressed machine guns in the 1920’s. I will have to get an article for this later.

so you are wrong and the guy is wrong about Biden’s position on guns and his outburst is no different than the hundreds that trump had that you would defend. Biden is not trying to take away guns. He is trying to treat an 47’s the same way machine guns were treated in the past. So you are lying and being misleading.

I have also defended some of trumps outbursts before and so I feel really comfortable saying that this is no different than one of those times. It is only different for the ones who are biased in favor of trump.

so lol for telling me I say what the media wants me to say. I haven’t watched cnn or any of the major news channels in years. Don’t have cable. I have just had an strong interest in politics for the last 20 years and I base my opinions off of the data that I have collected from my personal experience as an American voter. Not as someone who is being steered by news media, but your comment is really bait anyway.

it is one of those key comments that need to be made about people who don’t support trump. They need to be labeled as people who follow the establishment when you should know this isn’t true in theory. We have all been together on the forum since just after trump was elected and I have always enjoyed talking politics. Not that you need to remember everything I say, but I have said a lot about politics over the years I probably could even find my own comment on here where I was saying that even the grab them by the pussy thing shouldn’t be inflated the way it was.

therefore I am just someone who doesn’t have a bias against Biden for something that I was willing to overlook about trump. I am not someone following any kind of narrative, not that I don’t expect you to make this comment again because what you say is very scripted sometimes.

I just don’t think trump has done anything to deserve a second term, period.
 






weskrongden

Established
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
331
Are you sending me the right video? Biden is like congratulating someone. Yes Biden has some plan about ak 47’s that is built on some legislation from when they addressed machine guns in the 1920’s. I will have to get an article for this later.

so you are wrong and the guy is wrong about Biden’s position on guns and his outburst is no different than the hundreds that trump had that you would defend. Biden is not trying to take away guns. He is trying to treat an 47’s the same way machine guns were treated in the past. So you are lying and being misleading.

I have also defended some of trumps outbursts before and so I feel really comfortable saying that this is no different than one of those times. It is only different for the ones who are biased in favor of trump.

so lol for telling me I say what the media wants me to say. I haven’t watched cnn or any of the major news channels in years. Don’t have cable. I have just had an strong interest in politics for the last 20 years and I base my opinions off of the data that I have collected from my personal experience as an American voter. Not as someone who is being steered by news media, but your comment is really bait anyway.

it is one of those key comments that need to be made about people who don’t support trump. They need to be labeled as people who follow the establishment when you should know this isn’t true in theory. We have all been together on the forum since just after trump was elected and I have always enjoyed talking politics. Not that you need to remember everything I say, but I have said a lot about politics over the years I probably could even find my own comment on here where I was saying that even the grab them by the pussy thing shouldn’t be inflated the way it was.

therefore I am just someone who doesn’t have a bias against Biden for something that I was willing to overlook about trump. I am not someone following any kind of narrative, not that I don’t expect you to make this comment again because what you say is very scripted sometimes.

I just don’t think trump has done anything to deserve a second term, period.
There is no reason to ban "assault weapons" except as a first step to banning guns altogether. So no the guy isn't wrong. 0 reason for a gun ban.
 






vancityeagle

Established
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
163
I had an off-beat thought that the puppet-masters could choose to put Biden in. Drumph may have already served his purpose as Israel's shill. The engineered coronavirus could crash the economy and further expose his ineptitude as a leader. The analysts wildly overestimate his popularity. Let's not forget he lost the popular vote to a universally despised Clinton lol.

In real terms Biden is as dangerous to the world, if not more, and liable to start up new invasions/operations for the war machine. He suffers from the same cognitive disability and would be a blank slate for his handlers to do whatever.

Either way the US is screwed. I'm glad Bernie isn't throwing in the towel though. As his campaign said, only half the delegates have been decided. The "debate" on Sunday should be epic. His issues and the vast difference between he and Biden are worth continuing the fight.

Na dude, they aint done with Trump. They are just getting started. Trump is being very cautious with what he is attempting and that shows that they want him re elected. I believe we aren't at war with Iran simply because they want Trump re elected. Once that happens all hell will break loose.

If they wanted to get rid of Trump they wouldn't be setting up alzheimer Joe Biden who is going to be so easy for Trump to take down. Biden is literally the worst candidate the Democrats could have chosen (other than Bloomberg)

The people behind Trump have way too much they need to achieve and they have been plotting for decades to put a guy like him into position. The bigger picture is the War on Iran and the worldwide culture war and sharp turn to the far right. It will only increase. I used to think the Democratic establishement, evil as they are, were legitimately trying to take Trump down, I'm really not so sure of that anymore. They cannot be this stupid to be putting this guy up against Trump, nobody could be that stupid. It's a fix.
 






weskrongden

Established
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
331
Na dude, they aint done with Trump. They are just getting started. Trump is being very cautious with what he is attempting and that shows that they want him re elected. I believe we aren't at war with Iran simply because they want Trump re elected. Once that happens all hell will break loose.

If they wanted to get rid of Trump they wouldn't be setting up alzheimer Joe Biden who is going to be so easy for Trump to take down. Biden is literally the worst candidate the Democrats could have chosen (other than Bloomberg)

The people behind Trump have way too much they need to achieve and they have been plotting for decades to put a guy like him into position. The bigger picture is the War on Iran and the worldwide culture war and sharp turn to the far right. It will only increase. I used to think the Democratic establishement, evil as they are, were legitimately trying to take Trump down, I'm really not so sure of that anymore. They cannot be this stupid to be putting this guy up against Trump, nobody could be that stupid. It's a fix.
LOL Trump is not far right. He's nothing compared to someone like Orban or Salvini. The culture wars are a legitimate grassroots movement started by Pat Buchanan. Culture and traditionalism actually mean a lot to some of us. Virtually all the elites are against it and they're winning in the end. The right is not going to beat big tech and the most powerful corporations. The country is moving drastically to the left in the long term so I don't know what you're hyperventilating about.

"Diversity is our greatest strength" is pretty much gospel in this country now. And if you disagree with it, you'll probably be fired and have your life ruined but you're worried about the far right.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,556
There is no reason to ban "assault weapons" except as a first step to banning guns altogether. So no the guy isn't wrong. 0 reason for a gun ban.
The national firearms act has been trying to control the sale of machine guns since 1934, and this has never created a threat to gun ownership for the general public. So no, it is not the first step towards banning all guns, and even Biden’s plan to address assault weapons might turn out to be as productive as trumps claim to build a wall or Obama’s claim to pull out our troops.

some percentage of everything our presidential candidates say during a campaign will never manifest as a reality. So no, the guy was exaggerating something to get attention based on a video that went viral rather than a true investigation of the issue. I guess I had already posted an article that discussed both the video and Biden’s comments about how the video was misleading. Here is it again.

 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,080
I guess I had already posted an article that discussed both the video and Biden’s comments about how the video was misleading.

That article you posted is not even talking about the right video of Biden and O’Rourke, and I’m guessing you haven’t seen any of the videos we’re talking about, have you? Not the Biden/Beto one, or the Biden/autoworker one.

You should watch them, if you’re going to comment on them. Getting your opinion from the media will only backfire, because they don’t know what they’re talking about, either, and it’s kind of obvious when you both make the same mistake.

Again, this is the confrontation between Biden and the autoworker.


Following is the video of O’Rourke and Biden, where Biden promises that Beto is going to be the one to solve the gun problem, and it’s the video the autoworker was referring to. The video the article you posted is talking about is a clip of a boring breakfast with Biden and Beto. Why would a video of those two munching eggs and toast go viral? Why would anyone say it had, unless they were a gaslighting media hack?


In both videos, Biden’s words are clear. There is no way for myself or others to mislead anyone, when anyone can watch these clips in their entirety and see what was said.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,556
@Thunderian im so confused right now. So to be clear, these videos you post in your most recent reply are the “right” videos to observe that aren’t mentioned in the article I posted?

that’s news to me because the article is basically a verbatim transcript of the videos you are posting.

“The worker, among a group surrounding Biden in their hardhats at the Fiat Chrysler plant, accused Biden of “actively trying to end our Second Amendment right” and “take away our guns” in the exchange, which was caught on video.
“You’re full of ----,” Biden responded. “I support the Second Amendment.” He then appeared to tell an aide who was trying to end the conversation to “shush.”

Biden went on to explain that he believes there are limits to the Second Amendment. He compared it to the limits on the First Amendment right to free speech, such as the famous example of not being able to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.
The former vice president told the man he owned shotguns and that his sons were hunters...”

this is video one referenced that is basically verbatim of the first video you posted.

“A video of Biden meeting with former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who supports a mandatory buyback program, after O’Rourke endorsed him has been shared as evidence that Biden plans to confiscate guns. But FactCheck.org determined that such spin on that video was “misleading.”

In the video, Biden expresses admiration for O’Rourke’s positions on assault weapons and climate change and warns O’Rourke’s wife, Amy, that if he wins the election he is “coming for him,” presumably to work under a Biden administration. Some conservative sites have shared the video with the implication that Biden was saying, “I’m coming for them,” referring to guns.”

This video that you are posting is taken from the same rally that is being referenced in the article. So I'm a little confused by your comment. You are quoting a post where I am referencing this article


lol at saying that I am getting my opinion from the media. I form my opinion by reading material that is more thorough than the crap posted on Twitter like books. I haven’t watched cable in years, but like I said. I knew you would repeat this line again.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,080
@Thunderian im so confused right now. So to be clear, these videos you post in your most recent reply are the “right” videos to observe that aren’t mentioned in the article I posted?

that’s news to me because the article is basically a verbatim transcript of the videos you are posting.

“The worker, among a group surrounding Biden in their hardhats at the Fiat Chrysler plant, accused Biden of “actively trying to end our Second Amendment right” and “take away our guns” in the exchange, which was caught on video.
“You’re full of ----,” Biden responded. “I support the Second Amendment.” He then appeared to tell an aide who was trying to end the conversation to “shush.”

Biden went on to explain that he believes there are limits to the Second Amendment. He compared it to the limits on the First Amendment right to free speech, such as the famous example of not being able to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.
The former vice president told the man he owned shotguns and that his sons were hunters...”

this is video one referenced that is basically verbatim of the first video you posted.

“A video of Biden meeting with former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who supports a mandatory buyback program, after O’Rourke endorsed him has been shared as evidence that Biden plans to confiscate guns. But FactCheck.org determined that such spin on that video was “misleading.”

In the video, Biden expresses admiration for O’Rourke’s positions on assault weapons and climate change and warns O’Rourke’s wife, Amy, that if he wins the election he is “coming for him,” presumably to work under a Biden administration. Some conservative sites have shared the video with the implication that Biden was saying, “I’m coming for them,” referring to guns.”

This video that you are posting is taken from the same rally that is being referenced in the article. So I'm a little confused by your comment. You are quoting a post where I am referencing this article


lol at saying that I am getting my opinion from the media. I form my opinion by reading material that is more thorough than the crap posted on Twitter like books. I haven’t watched cable in years, but like I said. I knew you would repeat this line again.
See if you can connect the dots from Beto saying “I’m coming for your guns,” and Biden saying, “I’m putting Beto in charge of the gun problem.”

Yes, the video of Biden and the autoworker is the correct one, but the spin you’ve posted on the video of Biden and Beto is only correct if you’re talking about another video entirely.

The fact is that Biden denied the video of him and Beto existed. You can see that it does.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,556
@Thunderian

I am still confused. You are starting this line of questioning by quoting this post that I made where I said.

The national firearms act has been trying to control the sale of machine guns since 1934, and this has never created a threat to gun ownership for the general public. So no, it is not the first step towards banning all guns, and even Biden’s plan to address assault weapons might turn out to be as productive as trumps claim to build a wall or Obama’s claim to pull out our troops.

some percentage of everything our presidential candidates say during a campaign will never manifest as a reality. So no, the guy was exaggerating something to get attention based on a video that went viral rather than a true investigation of the issue. I guess I had already posted an article that discussed both the video and Biden’s comments about how the video was misleading. Here is it again.


'You're full of s***': Joe Biden gets in heated gun control debate with Detroit plant worker
Former Vice President Joe Biden got into a heated exchange with a worker over gun rights during a tour of a Detroit auto plant on Tuesday. The
www.dispatch.com
www.dispatch.com
The bolded part is what you quoted a couple of replies ago. So this is the response that you seem to be referring to when you say.

Yes, the video of Biden and the autoworker is the correct one, but the spin you’ve posted on the video of Biden and Beto is only correct if you’re talking about another video entirely.

The fact is that Biden denied the video of him and Beto existed. You can see that it does.
You are suggesting my comments here would have to apply to a different video. I guess this is highlighting the fact that even though you keep saying I'm missing something, you still haven't clarified what I am missing. Are you saying that this clip from the rally is saying that Biden wants to take guns away and that I am misinformed about this intention even though we have confirmed now that I am looking at the same information that you are?

So you are suggesting that the accusation that Biden is going to take away guns because he has been buddying up with Beto is the correct interpretation? So we should just ignore what he says to the worker who accuses him of this that is included in the same article.
"Here’s the deal. Are you able to own a machine gun?” Biden asks the worker.

“Machine guns are illegal,” the man replies. Biden argues AR-15s should be illegal for the same reason before the man is led away by other workers.

According to the platform laid on his website, Biden favors a ban on the sale and manufacture of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Those already in possession of such weapons would have a choice between selling them as part of a voluntary government buyback program, or registering them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

You see the bolded part that is taken from Biden's campaign page? It is reasonable to assume that this is what he means when he says he is coming for your guns. There are people who currently own AR-15's who would have to either sell them or register them.

So my comment was directly addressing the conversation he has with the worker because he mentions machine guns, so I mentioned the national firearms act. If you are trying to quote something else, you will need to tell me.

Reading this, I do realize a couple of my posts ago, I said AK-47 instead of AR-15's. So that is my bad, but outside of this, you are really making no sense and I cannot follow what you are trying to say. It seems like you're the one who is not really following this subject.

Honestly, I also don't care if assault weapons or machine guns are illegal. I have never even owned a gun and I see no reason to ever own a gun. I don't really feel like a gun would protect me against the government either, but I realize that some people enjoy guns, so I support their right to want to retain this privilege. Although, I don't see how getting rid of assault weapons violates this privilege.

So it is becoming clear to me that what you are trying to say is that Biden is really trying to take away all guns and this evidenced by this video clip of him and Beto, and nothing that he has said or posted on his campaign page is able to clarify this is as a misunderstanding?

It seems like you are trying to drive this point home because you feel like it benefits Trump. Feel free to continue doing this because I'm still hoping it will benefit Sanders even if I think it is a ridiculous position to take. It is still not going to be something that is really going to be detrimental to Biden's campaign even if he wins either.

I mean seriously, David Duke was endorsing Trump and he was still elected president. Beto's endorsement of Biden is not going to do much if people really want someone besides Trump to win. Biden's embrace of this endorsement is not going to do much either if people really don't want Trump to win. You're clutching straws and should be doing more to show that Trump was a president who made some kind of difference that deserves winning a second term, rather than promoting what could basically be considered a thought crime.
You and the others saying this is slang for "I'm going to take ALL guns" even though there are several places where it is explicitly stated otherwise, is the same as trying to convict a person of a thought crime.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,080
@Thunderian

I am still confused. You are starting this line of questioning by quoting this post that I made where I said.



The bolded part is what you quoted a couple of replies ago. So this is the response that you seem to be referring to when you say.



You are suggesting my comments here would have to apply to a different video. I guess this is highlighting the fact that even though you keep saying I'm missing something, you still haven't clarified what I am missing. Are you saying that this clip from the rally is saying that Biden wants to take guns away and that I am misinformed about this intention even though we have confirmed now that I am looking at the same information that you are?

So you are suggesting that the accusation that Biden is going to take away guns because he has been buddying up with Beto is the correct interpretation? So we should just ignore what he says to the worker who accuses him of this that is included in the same article.
"Here’s the deal. Are you able to own a machine gun?” Biden asks the worker.

“Machine guns are illegal,” the man replies. Biden argues AR-15s should be illegal for the same reason before the man is led away by other workers.

According to the platform laid on his website, Biden favors a ban on the sale and manufacture of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Those already in possession of such weapons would have a choice between selling them as part of a voluntary government buyback program, or registering them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

You see the bolded part that is taken from Biden's campaign page? It is reasonable to assume that this is what he means when he says he is coming for your guns. There are people who currently own AR-15's who would have to either sell them or register them.

So my comment was directly addressing the conversation he has with the worker because he mentions machine guns, so I mentioned the national firearms act. If you are trying to quote something else, you will need to tell me.

Reading this, I do realize a couple of my posts ago, I said AK-47 instead of AR-15's. So that is my bad, but outside of this, you are really making no sense and I cannot follow what you are trying to say. It seems like you're the one who is not really following this subject.

Honestly, I also don't care if assault weapons or machine guns are illegal. I have never even owned a gun and I see no reason to ever own a gun. I don't really feel like a gun would protect me against the government either, but I realize that some people enjoy guns, so I support their right to want to retain this privilege. Although, I don't see how getting rid of assault weapons violates this privilege.

So it is becoming clear to me that what you are trying to say is that Biden is really trying to take away all guns and this evidenced by this video clip of him and Beto, and nothing that he has said or posted on his campaign page is able to clarify this is as a misunderstanding?

It seems like you are trying to drive this point home because you feel like it benefits Trump. Feel free to continue doing this because I'm still hoping it will benefit Sanders even if I think it is a ridiculous position to take. It is still not going to be something that is really going to be detrimental to Biden's campaign even if he wins either.

I mean seriously, David Duke was endorsing Trump and he was still elected president. Beto's endorsement of Biden is not going to do much if people really want someone besides Trump to win. Biden's embrace of this endorsement is not going to do much either if people really don't want Trump to win. You're clutching straws and should be doing more to show that Trump was a president who made some kind of difference that deserves winning a second term, rather than promoting what could basically be considered a thought crime.
You and the others saying this is slang for "I'm going to take ALL guns" even though there are several places where it is explicitly stated otherwise, is the same as trying to convict a person of a thought crime.
There may have been some crossed wires in our posts. I apologize, so let me clarify here.

Beto’s gun control policy is to take away AR-15’s. He’s famous for his “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15,” comment.

Biden announced the other day that he was going to make Beto, in effect, his gun czar. Beto is going to solve America’s gun problem, Joe said.

Given Beto’s clearly expressed notion that AR-15’s are the root of America’s gun problem, and given that his openly stated solution is to take away all the AR-15’s, what are we, and the autoworker Biden was yelling at, supposed to think? To a layman like myself, it looks like Biden’s putting the guy who said he’s going to take guns away in charge of taking away guns.

We live in an age where everyone is reading Trump’s mind. Everything he says is parsed and dissected for hidden meaning, and it’s always the worst possible meaning that’s assumed, isn’t it?

But Biden comes along and says that the guy who said, “America, we’re going to take your guns away,” is the one he’s putting in charge of solving America’s gun problem, and we’re supposed to think this doesn’t involve confiscation of AR-15’s? Why would we think that? Because the media says that’s not what Joe meant?

That what the autoworker confronted Biden with. Biden’s response was to say the guy was full of shit, deny the video promising that Beto would solve the gun problem exists (we know that’s a lie, because the video is on this thread), and then threaten to slap him.

So, I’m sorry if our posts got confused, but if the argument is that Biden will make a better president than Trump, because Trump is a foul-mouthed, obnoxious, arrogant, lying bully, I think you need to watch Biden in that video again, as he swears at, lies to, threatens and then dismisses an American voter who asked for clarification of Biden’s promotion of Beto, and what it means for Biden’s stance on guns.

Is that more clear?
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,556
@Thunderian I still think it is a ridiculous conclusion. You’re acting like an AR-15 is just a normal gun that has been used for sport for years and years. It was originally designed to be a military weapon before it was marketed to the general public. Some designs are already banned, and in recent years, gun manufacturers have been marketing them for sport. An argument could be made that they are advertising this weapon the same way cigarettes used to be advertised with a motivation to make money and not what is in the best interest of the general public. You were talking about the danger of following mainstream narratives.

so this is not just an ordinary gun and technically Biden’s campaign page mentions gun distributors several times too because they may legitimately be guilty of creating misleading advertisements.

From Biden’s campaign page again.

“According to the platform laid on his website, Biden favors a ban on the sale and manufacture of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Those already in possession of such weapons would have a choice between selling them as part of a voluntary government buyback program, or registering them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

Ar-15’s are a high capacity magazine weapon, so it is not shocking that he would get along with Beto on this issue. It is also not a scandalous secret that is being revealed about Biden. It is literally in black and white already on his campaign page.

None of this matters though because we have this thing called a congress that will have to be presented with anything these two come up.

so no a large range of hunting weapons and weapons sold for personal protection will not be affected. So the worker was exaggerating something based on the comments made on a viral video. He wasnt even really making comments based on the content of the video. Then he chose to continue with this line of thinking without further investigation.

So your comparison is illegitimate. Biden was responding to a false narrative about his position. This is the same thing you praised trump for doing when he responded in a crude way towards comments that were made about him in the media.

I truly don’t care if these weapons are banned too. World war 1 was the deadliest war in history because of advances made to weapons which included guns. The term shell shocked was coined because of the traumatic effect being exposed to military weapons and death had on the people who were there, I find it difficult to sympathize with people who want to maintain the right to carry and use military style weapons with high capacity magazines for sport. A gun may be used for sport, but no one is laughing or enjoying themselves when they are used for war.

I understand and support the rationale behind the right to bear arms within the constitution. I also recognize that weapon development is a lot different now than it was in 1776. It is no different than the necessity of creating traffic laws even though traffic laws weren’t included in the constitution.
 






weskrongden

Established
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
331
@Thunderian I still think it is a ridiculous conclusion. You’re acting like an AR-15 is just a normal gun that has been used for sport for years and years. It was originally designed to be a military weapon before it was marketed to the general public. Some designs are already banned, and in recent years, gun manufacturers have been marketing them for sport. An argument could be made that they are advertising this weapon the same way cigarettes used to be advertised with a motivation to make money and not what is in the best interest of the general public. You were talking about the danger of following mainstream narratives.

so this is not just an ordinary gun and technically Biden’s campaign page mentions gun distributors several times too because they may legitimately be guilty of creating misleading advertisements.

From Biden’s campaign page again.

“According to the platform laid on his website, Biden favors a ban on the sale and manufacture of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Those already in possession of such weapons would have a choice between selling them as part of a voluntary government buyback program, or registering them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

Ar-15’s are a high capacity magazine weapon, so it is not shocking that he would get along with Beto on this issue. It is also not a scandalous secret that is being revealed about Biden. It is literally in black and white already on his campaign page.

None of this matters though because we have this thing called a congress that will have to be presented with anything these two come up.

so no a large range of hunting weapons and weapons sold for personal protection will not be affected. So the worker was exaggerating something based on the comments made on a viral video. He want even really making comments based on the content of the video. Then he chose to continue with this line of thinking without further investigation.

So your comparison is illegitimate. Biden was responding to a false narrative about his position. This is the same thing you praised trump for doing when he responded in a crude way towards comments that were made about him in the media.

I truly don’t care if these weapons are banned too. World war 1 was the deadliest war in history because of advances made to weapons which included guns. The term shell shocked was coined because of the traumatic effect being exposed to military weapons and death had on the people who were there, I find it difficult to sympathize with people who want to maintain the right to carry and use military style weapons with high capacity magazines for sport. A gun may be used for sport, but no one is laughing or enjoying themselves when they are used for war.

I understand and support the rationale behind the right to bear arms within the constitution. I also recognize that weapon development is a lot different now than it was in 1776. It is no different than the necessity of creating traffic laws even though traffic laws weren’t included in the constitution.
No it's not the same as traffic laws because banning "assault weapons" does nothing to make people safer LOL.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,556
No it's not the same as traffic laws because banning "assault weapons" does nothing to make people safer LOL.
the comparison was made because both are new situations that were not considered when the constitution was created. However, it is interesting that people are so adamant to preserve their right to have military style weapons. Almost like they have never read a book on the history of modern warfare. I’m thinking that some people in this world today feel like an absence of military style weapons would help make the world a safer place.

however, the point is that it is a significant leap to say that banning an ar-15 means that all handguns and other rifles will also be banned. How does anyone even suppose this to be possible? We are not electing a king who can laugh like a villain once ar 15’s are gone and say, “you thought that was all I was going to take. Wuah ha ha!! I’m going to take all your little hand guns too.”

seriously, there is still a process that has to be followed that includes congress. It is so ridiculous.
 






Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
6,080
@Thunderian I still think it is a ridiculous conclusion. You’re acting like an AR-15 is just a normal gun that has been used for sport for years and years. It was originally designed to be a military weapon before it was marketed to the general public. Some designs are already banned, and in recent years, gun manufacturers have been marketing them for sport. An argument could be made that they are advertising this weapon the same way cigarettes used to be advertised with a motivation to make money and not what is in the best interest of the general public. You were talking about the danger of following mainstream narratives.

so this is not just an ordinary gun and technically Biden’s campaign page mentions gun distributors several times too because they may legitimately be guilty of creating misleading advertisements.

From Biden’s campaign page again.

“According to the platform laid on his website, Biden favors a ban on the sale and manufacture of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Those already in possession of such weapons would have a choice between selling them as part of a voluntary government buyback program, or registering them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

Ar-15’s are a high capacity magazine weapon, so it is not shocking that he would get along with Beto on this issue. It is also not a scandalous secret that is being revealed about Biden. It is literally in black and white already on his campaign page.

None of this matters though because we have this thing called a congress that will have to be presented with anything these two come up.

so no a large range of hunting weapons and weapons sold for personal protection will not be affected. So the worker was exaggerating something based on the comments made on a viral video. He wasnt even really making comments based on the content of the video. Then he chose to continue with this line of thinking without further investigation.

So your comparison is illegitimate. Biden was responding to a false narrative about his position. This is the same thing you praised trump for doing when he responded in a crude way towards comments that were made about him in the media.

I truly don’t care if these weapons are banned too. World war 1 was the deadliest war in history because of advances made to weapons which included guns. The term shell shocked was coined because of the traumatic effect being exposed to military weapons and death had on the people who were there, I find it difficult to sympathize with people who want to maintain the right to carry and use military style weapons with high capacity magazines for sport. A gun may be used for sport, but no one is laughing or enjoying themselves when they are used for war.

I understand and support the rationale behind the right to bear arms within the constitution. I also recognize that weapon development is a lot different now than it was in 1776. It is no different than the necessity of creating traffic laws even though traffic laws weren’t included in the constitution.
The specifications of the AR-15 are beside the point. The man who asked the question wasn’t being rude or aggressive, so why did Biden respond that way?

Whatever the correct interpretation of Biden’s promise regarding Beto is, we’re still left with an angry, swearing, confused, old man, shaking his finger in the face of an American worker with a question. Say what you want about Trump, but I’ve never seen him do anything like that.
 






weskrongden

Established
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
331
the comparison was made because both are new situations that were not considered when the constitution was created. However, it is interesting that people are so adamant to preserve their right to have military style weapons. Almost like they have never read a book on the history of modern warfare. I’m thinking that some people in this world today feel like an absence of military style weapons would help make the world a safer place.

however, the point is that it is a significant leap to say that banning an ar-15 means that all handguns and other rifles will also be banned. How does anyone even suppose this to be possible? We are not electing a king who can laugh like a villain once ar 15’s are gone and say, “you thought that was all I was going to take. Wuah ha ha!! I’m going to take all your little hand guns too.”

seriously, there is still a process that has to be followed that includes congress. It is so ridiculous.
-Ban "assault weapons"
-Virtually no effect on gun deaths or mass shootings because pistols have large magazines, can quickly fire shots and are reloaded quickly if the shooter knows what they're doing
-Politicians "well that ban didn't work, we need to go farther"
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
12,401
The specifications of the AR-15 are beside the point. The man who asked the question wasn’t being rude or aggressive, so why did Biden respond that way?

Whatever the correct interpretation of Biden’s promise regarding Beto is, we’re still left with an angry, swearing, confused, old man, shaking his finger in the face of an American worker with a question. Say what you want about Trump, but I’ve never seen him do anything like that.
If it were a woman he’d be smelling her hair and laying his head on her shoulder..
 






Last edited:

Aero

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,107
I'm pretty sure most gun crimes are committed with handguns. And sure, that's mainly because they are so common. But it should make you think about what removing Ar-15s will really accomplish.

As far as the Biden vs Gun activist controversy goes, I think if it was anyone else people would be calling it a "meltdown". Which brings me to my main point. I don't think a lot of people had a choice but to endorse Biden.

I've talked about rigging elections before. But I would never force anyone to vote a specific way. I might force people to get off their butts and vote for who they were already going to vote for. Now I would of course call that skill, but forcing picks is like cheating.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,556
The specifications of the AR-15 are beside the point. The man who asked the question wasn’t being rude or aggressive, so why did Biden respond that way?

Whatever the correct interpretation of Biden’s promise regarding Beto is, we’re still left with an angry, swearing, confused, old man, shaking his finger in the face of an American worker with a question. Say what you want about Trump, but I’ve never seen him do anything like that.
interesting so now the specifications of the ar-15 don’t matter. I think you’re the one that needs to watch the video again. The guys wasn’t just an American with a question. He had his own agenda. That’s why this was being filmed and is being used to support your narrative. They were baiting him to get fodder that would help them promote trump.

the man was also being aggressive. He didn’t want to genuinely ask a question. He wanted to catch Biden off guard so he could use it against him somehow. I don’t really see Biden still behaving anywhere near as rude as trump does on a regular basis, but you are the one with a narrative to promote so it is understandable that you don’t see this.

There are literally countless articles on rude, senseless comments trumps made. I posted some examples from twitter, which you ignored and moved to reassert an illegitimate point. Whatever man. Keep on keeping on and campaigning for trump from Canada. You have given me seven more reasons to not vote for him so thank you.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,556
-Ban "assault weapons"
-Virtually no effect on gun deaths or mass shootings because pistols have large magazines, can quickly fire shots and are reloaded quickly if the shooter knows what they're doing
-Politicians "well that ban didn't work, we need to go farther"
I think it is more about the mass shootings than the gun deaths. When a large number of people die at one time, it would make sense to remove a weapon that people without much experience with guns can use to kill many people at once.

technically, your argument about pistols would require several considerations. You would have to consider the rate that people who spend that much time training to use a pistol for the purpose of a mass shooting, so that they could in theory keep up with an ar 15 in a mass shooting situation.

my hypothesis would be that a small percentage of people train to use a gun this efficiently for this purpose. The difference being that an ar 15 does not require any special training. So my hypothesis is that the ratio of people who would use an ar 15 in a mass shooting situation is higher than the number of people who would choose to invest their time training to use a gun this quickly.

On the other hand, would making an ar 15 illegal create an incentive to do this? No, it probably would just motivate people to acquire them illegally, which brings up the discussion on the effectiveness of prohibition and whether this is mirrored in places where illegal weapons are chosen when the intention is to instigate violence.

so essentially there is the possibility that removing ar 15’s would eliminate the risk of their use in mass shootings for a certain demographic, but it could increase their use in another. This is why addressing the role gun manufacturers play might be more important than banning the gun itself.

but all of it would only matter if this proposal passed in congress as well. Until then, it is all just speculation and chasing the wind really.
 






Top