Because global warming from emissions is real...

HarveyH55 wrote:
What sort of hunting would someone need a semi-automatic rifle for anyway?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Does it really take 30 rounds, fast as you can pull the trigger, to bring down Bambi's mom?

HarveyH55 wrote:
My experience as a youth, was you usually only get on shot, sometimes a second, and that's pretty much it for a while. There are already enough idiots in the woods during hunting season, who start shooting when they see a bush move a little. Can't imagine being out there, with someone spraying thirty rounds everywhere.

HarveyH55 wrote:
For home defense, a shotgun is usually the best choice.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Got the best chance of hitting your intended target, while not as likely to kill anyone else by accident. A rifle bullet can fly a good distance, and still be lethal. It's not like in the movies, those stray bullets go some place, If you have to take the time to chamber each round, you are going to be more careful where you shoot it, less waste, less risk to others you don't intend to hurt.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe semi-automatic weapons should be so easy for anyone to own.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Just no real good reason to have one, unless you intent to kill people, with little regard.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd like to see more open carry,

HarveyH55 wrote:
and those people should be required to take a test annually, to demonstrate that hey can actually hit what their shooting at, and not place others at risk.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Takes practice, it's a big responsibility, and guns aren't toys.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Even our police officers are getting a little careless these days.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Been two accidental discharges in the past month, where a bystander was injured, and several others earlier this year.

HarveyH55 wrote:
That's just locally, not sure about the state, or nationally.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Should never happen with a highly trained professional.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Firearms aren't going away.

HarveyH55 wrote:
If people can buy them, it's not that hard to make them, if you want one bad enough.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's really best, that people can legally buy and own them though.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The laws are a little outdated,

HarveyH55 wrote:
and too many people want to used them in populated areas.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's nothing like when the laws were written.

HarveyH55 wrote:
People used there guns often, it was important to learn to shoot, and shoot well, since all firearms were single shot, muzzle loaded, could afford to miss often, and not much chance of hitting a neighbor, when you did.

HarveyH55 wrote:
A person caught in the act of committing a crime, should accept the consequences.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Running, is an admission of guilt, and should be a shooting offense.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's a public service, since that individual would only just go find another potential victim, a short time later.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Most of the crimes that plague us, wouldn't be so appealing, not worth dying for.

dehammer wrote:
That type of gun has long been banned.

dehammer wrote:
No one seriously cared.

dehammer wrote:
But there are attempts not to limit your guns to only 1 or 2 bullets. There are others that want to require that you only get one shot per trigger pull. There are some places that want to require that you keep your bullets in a different building. How do you have home protection if you have to run out to the shed to get bullets?

dehammer wrote:
It doesn't matter if people want to use them in populated areas, since that's where you are most likely going to be attacked by criminals that do not bother to follow the laws.

dehammer wrote:
Personally, it would not bother me, since I was trained in the construction and firing of wrist bows. These are multi-shot (usually 3 on each side of the wrist, 12 in total) mini crossbows. There are no laws governing them since they are so rare.

Ken Fabian wrote:
Because the climate problem is real all these imagined reasons scientists keep saying it is real - are false. Because the problem is real and crosses all national boundaries nations need to work together to address it effectively.

Dave - you are wasting yourself obsessing over "mistakes" that a more thorough understanding of mainstream science would show are resolved; trying to explain global warming that is already well understood but without the fossil fuel emissions (and conspiracies amongst scientists) isn't going to work.

Into the Night - your (and other's) special understanding that no-one can even know if the world is warming or cooling is pure bunk. It is warming and increasingly, it is confirmed by real world experiences as well as multiple independent kinds of measurement.

Dehammer - your imagined (and other's) conspiracy of Marxists planning to take over the world is nonsense. The extremists at the fringe? The majority don't listen to them. More importantly those developing appropriate policy don't listen to them. That majority of reasonable and reasoning people like me who are legitimately concerned are supporting a transition to low emissions by means that don't involve Socialist global dictatorships.

IbdaMann - your (and other's) green marxist religious scam is pure delusional nonsense; back in the real world taking mainstream expert advice seriously is entirely rational and reasonable and isn't religion no matter how often you say it. Saying so over and over might help convince yourself but from here, in the midst of people who want action of emissions there is not a single sign of dictatorial marxist tendencies.

Of course, within nations with elected governments with the rule of law there is a spectrum of views on where the line on government interventions on matters of what governments should be doing and what taxation levels should be - and that is not a case of people who want emissions regulation or carbon pricing promoting Marxist dictatorship, just democratic processes and the rule of law at work. A whole different debate.

Meanwhile you guys are going to have to continue to suck it up, because the climate issue is not ever going to go away, not ever in the lifetimes of any person now living. As more and more extreme real world impacts occur view like yours will be consigned to history - you are already at the fringes, barely worth engaging with.

Reasonable and informed people want strong emissions policies because the problem is real. Having the constructive contributions of the political Right would be welcomed by most of us - which kind of makes a point by itself.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It wasn't that semi-automatics could be used for hunting, it was about what sort of hunting can you do with them, that you can't with any other rifle or pistol?

HarveyH55 wrote:
They basically just lower the skill level needed to hit a target, by allowing you more bullets to accomplish the task.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Specified criminal running away, are you a criminal?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Or just a silly justification argument?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't be harder for you to run away from a semi-automatic?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Not calling for a ban on anything, just don't believe buying them, or owning them should be so simple, a little higher standard for those that have an actual need of them as tool, not just a cool toy.

HarveyH55 wrote:
People who carry in public, need to be tested often, reminds them it's a big responsibility, insures they practice occasionally.

HarveyH55 wrote:
School/church shooters, 10 seconds?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Least 5 sitting jail, waiting for trial. Most of them take their own lives.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Think the police use to help them with that, before body cameras.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Boston marathon bomber is still alive, don't know why.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Should have been hung publically.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I prefer the open carry, it's a better deterrent.

HarveyH55 wrote:
A person considering committing a crime, has an obvious reason to think it's not such a great idea, less likely to be successful, unless he plans on dying.

paramount99 wrote:

Ken Fabian wrote:
Because the climate problem is real all these imagined reasons scientists keep saying it is real - are false. Because the problem is real and crosses all national boundaries nations need to work together to address it effectively.

Dave - you are wasting yourself obsessing over "mistakes" that a more thorough understanding of mainstream science would show are resolved; trying to explain global warming that is already well understood but without the fossil fuel emissions (and conspiracies amongst scientists) isn't going to work.

Into the Night - your (and other's) special understanding that no-one can even know if the world is warming or cooling is pure bunk. It is warming and increasingly, it is confirmed by real world experiences as well as multiple independent kinds of measurement.

Dehammer - your imagined (and other's) conspiracy of Marxists planning to take over the world is nonsense. The extremists at the fringe? The majority don't listen to them. More importantly those developing appropriate policy don't listen to them. That majority of reasonable and reasoning people like me who are legitimately concerned are supporting a transition to low emissions by means that don't involve Socialist global dictatorships.

IbdaMann - your (and other's) green marxist religious scam is pure delusional nonsense; back in the real world taking mainstream expert advice seriously is entirely rational and reasonable and isn't religion no matter how often you say it. Saying so over and over might help convince yourself but from here, in the midst of people who want action of emissions there is not a single sign of dictatorial marxist tendencies.

Of course, within nations with elected governments with the rule of law there is a spectrum of views on where the line on government interventions on matters of what governments should be doing and what taxation levels should be - and that is not a case of people who want emissions regulation or carbon pricing promoting Marxist dictatorship, just democratic processes and the rule of law at work. A whole different debate.

Meanwhile you guys are going to have to continue to suck it up, because the climate issue is not ever going to go away, not ever in the lifetimes of any person now living. As more and more extreme real world impacts occur view like yours will be consigned to history - you are already at the fringes, barely worth engaging with.

Reasonable and informed people want strong emissions policies because the problem is real. Having the constructive contributions of the political Right would be welcomed by most of us - which kind of makes a point by itself.

I must say that during my years I have found the liberal left (they are heading from socialism to extreme communism these days at least in my reckoning - but likely without knowing it)

paramount99 wrote:
seem not to have the ability or skill to see the wood for the trees...

paramount99 wrote:
I became more aware of this during my three decades of playing competitive tennis (I learnt other (social) things as well as great tennis) where after playing at maybe twelve different clubs (to play against better and better players) and being surrounded by teachers (mostly they fit with the liberal left) I became aware of just how blinkered they were. So blinkered at times it was truly frightening. They seemed to live in this otherworldly bubble where what was happening in the real world wasn't actually sinking in through the thick outer shell.

paramount99 wrote:
I quickly went from enjoying being part of this gathering to wanting to bang my head against the wall, and loosing complete respect for these human people.

paramount99 wrote:
There were a number of, let's call them, Dons, at some of the clubs: mostly Oxbridge types and, oddly, I got on better with them than the teachers (they seemed separate entities - didn't like each other), as although they might have had opinions, you could bat them back and forth and in mutual appreciation, whereas the teachers would not budge on anything, as everything they knew (not much really) was fact in their eyes... They were un-bending. I know this seems like an odd story for this forum, but I really do believe these liberal left types are unwaveringly trapped in some un-seeing, blinding fog!!! And this is what I see all the time with global warming believers/followers... They live in a cultic like fog!!!

paramount99 wrote:
But thankfully, real science and not saudo science has more recently woken up to this madness and is starting to call these modern day (LOL) bringers of doom out!

paramount99 wrote:
The socialist/communist/Marxist threat part of all this will be unseen by these liberal lefty tree-huggers and snow-flakes... As the view from their haughty bubble hides most of what is real and is true...

paramount99 wrote:
They cannot be changed...

paramount99 wrote:
You try telling them they didn't invent wine - and see how they react.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We can only hope that the liberals did enough damage to their own party, that even with millions of imported/immigrant voters, they don't have much chance in 2020.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They can't seem to give up on removing Trump, seem a little scared of him, and the likelihood he's going to be in office another 4 years.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The Clintons could dig up an seriously damaging dirt, and they are famous for it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Two years of investigation, unlimited resources, best spy organizations, could find anything useful either.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Still, they hope to pull it off, on some vague technicalities in the reports or Trump's financials.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They have 22 candidates running (new record?),

HarveyH55 wrote:
all pretty much giving the same promise of free stuff,

HarveyH55 wrote:
vague plans on how to pay for it all, like tax the rich, but no details or timeline on how that might be accomplished, without harming the working class.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Higher taxes are a business expense, just rolls on down the money pile, for poor folks to collect, through higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, less benefits. They really can't go into any detail, because they have no intention of following through, their major campaign donors know this. These rich donors, also have the resources to dig up the dirt on most anyone, or make shit up, if they can't. Not always successful, but damaging, a distraction, and tend to add up.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I think most people like the free stuff offered, but don't really like the idea of changing the way they live. So far, the liberals have been able to pass out the freebies, by running up the national debt, or raising taxes on everybody, but that won't work for long.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Trump's trade wars,

HarveyH55 wrote:
isn't just putting us back into buying American made products, and making more of our own, but it's also going after the countries that lend the liberals all that money they like give out so freely.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Trump will win the trade wars, we import a lot of stuff, because it's cheap, and mostly frivolous/trendy.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Most of are [our?] exports are things other countries desperately need, and have little choice about eventually giving in.

HarveyH55 wrote:
To make up their losses in the trade deals, they aren't going to be so generous on lending to the US, and will be wanting some of those trillions back, from past loans.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think they can change the terms, but can raise some hell over them.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Takes congress a year, sometimes more (shutdowns), to figure out how to pay the bills, an how to spend what's left over.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I think Trump is on the right road, keep consumer dollars in our own economy, rather than sending it overseas, cut off the loan money, and start bring American business back home, to produce the product we want and need right here, creating jobs. More people working, stronger businesses, more tax revenue, without raising the rates. Paying off some of our debts, will reduce our interest payments, freeing up more money. Congress should have so much trouble figuring out a budget, if they can stop wasting so much, or stealing...

Into the Night wrote: Just what IS money? What is it that gives it value? Why do societies change what they use for money? What triggers that change? What form does the new money take? Why the new money be valued over the old money?

HarveyH55 wrote:
You miss read, the interest payment I was referring to is on the loans from other countries. Even the bonds you mention, should be paying out some sort of return, to those who buy them. Most bonds have a cash value, can be sold, cashed in. The company us to hand out US Savings Bonds, until Bill Clinton did something... After 6 months you could cash them in for more than half the face value, which is more than they cost. You'd have to hang on to them for 12 years, to get the full amount. Hope they don't expire, since I still have at
least three I didn't cash in. I didn't get them often, usually part of some special achievement, like perfect attendance. The bonds are with the awards, and lost in my clutter. Clinton really messed up a good thing too, they stop handing out a lot stuff like that, has something to do with paying taxes, as those rewards and freebies, were turned in to part of or pay. It was probably intended more to rob the rich guys of their bonuses. We seldom get more than an occasional Walmart Gift card, and a frozen turkey for Thanksgiving.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Just what IS money? What is it that gives it value? Why do societies change what they use for money? What triggers that change? What form does the new money take? Why the new money be valued over the old money?

Oh, pick me, pick me!

Currency is just a normalizer across goods and services, i.e. a unit of measure. Anything that serves this purpose is currency. If you have 165,000 points with your credit card with which to buy hotel stays, airline tickets, grooming products, a travel jacket for your dog, etc...you have currency.

Money is just physical currency. Dollars are money because you can hold them in your hand. Credit card points are currency but are not money. If the credit card company starts issuing point certificates then you have money.

The value of any currency is determined by the community of people who will accept that currency, i.e. the value of a currency is a subjective, human determination based on perceived legitimacy. The words used are "faith" and/or "confidence" in the same sense as applied to politicians. If something happens to shake that perception legitimacy, to shake that faith/confidence, then the currency's value takes a hit as fewer people will accept it or more people will require more of it for the same goods and services. The U.S. dollar is like a dug-in politician while the Venezuela Bolivar lost its no-confidence vote years ago. .

I'm here through Thursday.

Into the Night wrote:
A good answer, but I submit that even bits can be money, though you cannot hold them in your hand.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
A good answer, but I submit that even bits can be money, though you cannot hold them in your hand.

Bits, messages, communications, electronic records can all be pointers to currency but they are not the currency.

IBdaMann wrote:
Regarding the term "money" ... I don't see any problem with using any of the following, as long as it is made clear up front to avoid confusion:

Currency vs Hard Currency
Currency vs Money
Money vs Paper Money
Currency vs Paper Money

IBdaMann wrote:
... etc. I simply go with "money" being the physical manifestation but if you don't, that's fine too. Economics models don't care what you name your currency or what you call paper money, among other things.

IBdaMann wrote:
In all examples it's currency that is being exchanged, regardless of the form.

it will be not make the US a socialist dictatorship

Because global warming is real

Ken Fabian wrote:
Whether you call the USA a republic or whatever and not 'democracy', if people vote in a government that support 'socialist' things like universal healthcare or welfare, or supposedly socialist things like treating mainstream science advice on climate seriously it will be not make the US a socialist dictatorship - or even especially socialist; most nations that have things like universal healthcare still have an economy full of people running businesses, making profits, accumulating wealth. And they do not consider what they have to be 'socialism'. Call it democracy (as I do, for shorthand), or call it consent of the governed. The great socialist disasters have all been corrupt dictatorships that suppress the rule of law - and corruption that suppresses the rule of law is not a failing that capitalism is immune from; living in corrupt right wing dictatorships is crap too.

Don't like AOC's ideas (which are aspirational and unlikely to ever be enacted as stated)? I will keep on saying it - come up with credible 'right' leaning policies and promote them. Only delusions about the climate problem being by and about socialism (and not a general urge to avoid being responsible for our own actions) prevents the conservative Right from coming up with and supporting credible alternative rather than entrenching institutionalised cheating on basic responsibility for harms arising from their activities. I would note that it has not been climate activist politics that opposes market based solutions like carbon pricing. But I can see how important it is to those here to believe the science is wrong - because the whole marxist conspiracy delusion all falls apart in the face of global warming being true.

Give the extremist 'free' marketeers what they want - low wages, no regulation, even for things where responsibility and accountability should be clear, like climate externalities that harm others, and no taxation - and demand will reduce, infrastructure will run down, employees will be less educated and more unhealthy and future business opportunities get reduced. The social downsides of poverty are a cost the rest of a society bears one way or another. A lot of civilised nations find the costs of social welfare less burdensome than the social disruption and crime of entrenched poverty.

Because global warming is real and it is going to be so economically as well as environmentally disruptive it is, as I say, entirely reasonable to call on governments to act and to engage with other nations in international agreements to act. effectively.

dehammer wrote:

it will be not make the US a socialist dictatorship

IF you look at what they are trying to do, its to destroy all the democratic and capitalist parts of the US. They want to take away our homes, our cars and our jobs and put us on a government pay where they get to dictate what we are allowed to do. Because we are totally dependent on them and they will cut us off if we do not do as they demand, they will have dictatorship in everything but name.

how long do you think it would be, before someone gets voted in as president for life, and his vice president gets the automatic vote when he dies? Or to be more precise, when SHE dies. We all know how the first "president for life" would have been if she had been elected. The restriction on term limitations would have been removed. They already started pushing for it, expecting her to become president.

Because global warming is real

yes, its real, but it isn't man made.

Ken Fabian wrote:
Whether you call the USA a republic or whatever and not 'democracy', if people vote in a government that support 'socialist' things like universal healthcare or welfare, or supposedly socialist things like treating mainstream science advice on climate seriously it will be not make the US a socialist dictatorship - or even especially socialist; most nations that have things like universal healthcare still have an economy full of people running businesses, making profits, accumulating wealth. And they do not consider what they have to be 'socialism'. Call it democracy (as I do, for shorthand), or call it consent of the governed. The great socialist disasters have all been corrupt dictatorships that suppress the rule of law - and corruption that suppresses the rule of law is not a failing that capitalism is immune from; living in corrupt right wing dictatorships is crap too.

Don't like AOC's ideas (which are aspirational and unlikely to ever be enacted as stated)? I will keep on saying it - come up with credible 'right' leaning policies and promote them. Only delusions about the climate problem being by and about socialism (and not a general urge to avoid being responsible for our own actions) prevents the conservative Right from coming up with and supporting credible alternative rather than entrenching institutionalised cheating on basic responsibility for harms arising from their activities. I would note that it has not been climate activist politics that opposes market based solutions like carbon pricing. But I can see how important it is to those here to believe the science is wrong - because the whole marxist conspiracy delusion all falls apart in the face of global warming being true.

Give the extremist 'free' marketeers what they want - low wages, no regulation, even for things where responsibility and accountability should be clear, like climate externalities that harm others, and no taxation - and demand will reduce, infrastructure will run down, employees will be less educated and more unhealthy and future business opportunities get reduced. The social downsides of poverty are a cost the rest of a society bears one way or another. A lot of civilised nations find the costs of social welfare less burdensome than the social disruption and crime of entrenched poverty.

Because global warming is real and it is going to be so economically as well as environmentally disruptive it is, as I say, entirely reasonable to call on governments to act and to engage with other nations in international agreements to act. effectively.

Ken Fabian wrote:
Whether you call the USA a republic or whatever and not 'democracy',
Because global warming is real and it is going to be so economically as well as environmentally disruptive it is, as I say, entirely reasonable to call on governments to act and to engage with other nations in international agreements to act. effectively.

Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. This is a meaningless phrase. There is nothing real about a meaningless buzzword.

dehammer wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. This is a meaningless phrase. There is nothing real about a meaningless buzzword.

The earth has warmed up since the little ice age.

dehammer wrote:
It is important because that is the point the use to claim man made co2 is causing the problem.

dehammer wrote:
Climate change is not because of co2, but due to the melting of glaciers.

dehammer wrote:
The melt is not the result of the warming, it IS the warming.

dehammer wrote:
During the little ice age, the glaciers advanced and they have retreated since.

James___ wrote: When I basically attacked the IPCC's credibility, IBDaMann defended them.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: When I basically attacked the IPCC's credibility, IBDaMann defended them.

I must have slept through that. Could you point me to when/where I did that?

I don't recall ever having lent any sort of credibility to the IPCC.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: When I basically attacked the IPCC's credibility, IBDaMann defended them.

I must have slept through that. Could you point me to when/where I did that?

I don't recall ever having lent any sort of credibility to the IPCC.

You told me to list 5 predictions that they made. I didn't. You said that proves that I don't know what I'm talking about. Like Isn't, the 2 of you are only in here to promote your political beliefs.
I think it's funny when if people can't have what they want they create problems for other people. Talking about Americans here. But as you said IBNotDaMann, it's about YOU. Even Harvey says the same thing.
Ya'all have fun.

James___ wrote: You told me to list 5 predictions that they made. I didn't.

James___ wrote: You said that proves that I don't know what I'm talking about.

James___ wrote: Like Isn't, the 2 of you are only in here to promote your political beliefs.

James___ wrote: I think it's funny when if people can't have what they want they create problems for other people.

James___ wrote: Talking about Americans here. But as you said IBNotDaMann, it's about YOU. Even Harvey says the same thing.
Ya'all have fun.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It wasn't that semi-automatics could be used for hunting, it was about what sort of hunting can you do with them, that you can't with any other rifle or pistol? They basically just lower the skill level needed to hit a target, by allowing you more bullets to accomplish the task.

Specified criminal running away, are you a criminal? Or just a silly justification argument? Wouldn't be harder for you to run away from a semi-automatic?

Not calling for a ban on anything, just don't believe buying them, or owning them should be so simple, a little higher standard for those that have an actual need of them as tool, not just a cool toy.

People who carry in public, need to be tested often, reminds them it's a big responsibility, insures they practice occasionally.

School/church shooters, 10 seconds? Least 5 sitting jail, waiting for trial. Most of them take their own lives. Think the police use to help them with that, before body cameras. Boston marathon bomber is still alive, don't know why. Should have been hung publically.

I prefer the open carry, it's a better deterrent. A person considering committing a crime, has an obvious reason to think it's not such a great idea, less likely to be successful, unless he plans on dying.

Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

Wake, you are attempting to make sense. The people trying to ban guns are firmly rooted in an irrational fear. Acrophobes are irrationally terrified of heights. Claustrophobes are irrationally terrified of enclosed spaces. Hoplophobes are irrationally terrified of guns; they JUST WANT THEM GONE!

In the UK, a hoplophobic country, upon realizing that outlawing guns resulted in an increase in the murder rate, did not reverse the prohibition to allow self defense. Instead they just outlawed knives. Yes, they outlawed knives. Instead of repealing gun control, they simply added on "knife-control." This is what happens when policy is made by irrational people with whom one cannot reason.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

Wake, you are attempting to make sense. The people trying to ban guns are firmly rooted in an irrational fear. Acrophobes are irrationally terrified of heights. Claustrophobes are irrationally terrified of enclosed spaces. Hoplophobes are irrationally terrified of guns; they JUST WANT THEM GONE!

In the UK, a hoplophobic country, upon realizing that outlawing guns resulted in an increase in the murder rate, did not reverse the prohibition to allow self defense. Instead they just outlawed knives. Yes, they outlawed knives. Instead of repealing gun control, they simply added on "knife-control." This is what happens when policy is made by irrational people with whom one cannot reason.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936

The problem is that there are NOT a large number of gun grabbers. So exactly why does the media intentionally make it appear that there is? What we have is an illogical and in many cases criminal media whose intentions seem to run counter to America's best interest almost all of the time now.

So the question is - exactly HOW can we force the media back on the track of reporting the real news to America rather than trying to force their opinions upon us?

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

Wake, you are attempting to make sense. The people trying to ban guns are firmly rooted in an irrational fear. Acrophobes are irrationally terrified of heights. Claustrophobes are irrationally terrified of enclosed spaces. Hoplophobes are irrationally terrified of guns; they JUST WANT THEM GONE!

In the UK, a hoplophobic country, upon realizing that outlawing guns resulted in an increase in the murder rate, did not reverse the prohibition to allow self defense. Instead they just outlawed knives. Yes, they outlawed knives. Instead of repealing gun control, they simply added on "knife-control." This is what happens when policy is made by irrational people with whom one cannot reason.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936

The problem is that there are NOT a large number of gun grabbers. So exactly why does the media intentionally make it appear that there is? What we have is an illogical and in many cases criminal media whose intentions seem to run counter to America's best interest almost all of the time now.

So the question is - exactly HOW can we force the media back on the track of reporting the real news to America rather than trying to force their opinions upon us?

There are countries that will let you own any weapon you want. Move to one and problem solved. No one is forcing you to live here.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: A fast bolt action shooter could shoot nearly as rapidly as WW I showed. Semi-automatic DO NOT make an inaccurate shooter more likely to hit the target since we see that people can dodge fully automatic fire.

Wake, you are attempting to make sense. The people trying to ban guns are firmly rooted in an irrational fear. Acrophobes are irrationally terrified of heights. Claustrophobes are irrationally terrified of enclosed spaces. Hoplophobes are irrationally terrified of guns; they JUST WANT THEM GONE!

In the UK, a hoplophobic country, upon realizing that outlawing guns resulted in an increase in the murder rate, did not reverse the prohibition to allow self defense. Instead they just outlawed knives. Yes, they outlawed knives. Instead of repealing gun control, they simply added on "knife-control." This is what happens when policy is made by irrational people with whom one cannot reason.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936

The problem is that there are NOT a large number of gun grabbers. So exactly why does the media intentionally make it appear that there is? What we have is an illogical and in many cases criminal media whose intentions seem to run counter to America's best interest almost all of the time now.

So the question is - exactly HOW can we force the media back on the track of reporting the real news to America rather than trying to force their opinions upon us?

There are countries that will let you own any weapon you want. Move to one and problem solved. No one is forcing you to live here.

I don't have to move ANYWHERE. I have the 2nd Amendment and you have nothing at all.

Tell us all what you think you can do against the power of the Supreme Court.

James___ wrote:It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Anymore, some people take there 2nd Amendment right, to mean they're entitled to take their semiautomatic rifle out and gun down crowds of people. Magazine capacity is relative, only takes a couple of seconds to change them out. I'm not afraid of guns, nor do I expect a ban on any of them. I am afraid of the nutjobs that seem to have no trouble buying them, or finding a friend or relative, to 'borrow' from. There really is no recreation need of them, nor does the casual gun owner really need one. There are a few exceptions, and those can be addressed, but it shouldn't be simple for anyone to just walk into the local Walmart and buy one.

Anything can be used as weapon, can't ban everything. You don't even need a weapon to kill. Guns make it less labor intensive, less risky, clean and efficient. Going semiautomatic, just makes it easy to kill more people, quickly. If a high body count is the goal, a bomb would be the next choice, but that isn't something most people are as comfortable messing with, since they don't come ready to use, or in a DIY kit off Ebay. The point is that here in the US, we've been having at least one mass shooting event, every year, usually more. Some more deadly than others. Semiautomaticas are a common theme, just like in video games. I don't know what motivates the mass shooters, most don't seem to have much of a criminal, or violent history. I do know there isn't any real need for most people to own a gun, which allows them to throw out 30 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger.

GasGuzzler wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Anymore, some people take there 2nd Amendment right, to mean they're entitled to take their semiautomatic rifle out and gun down crowds of people. Magazine capacity is relative, only takes a couple of seconds to change them out. I'm not afraid of guns, nor do I expect a ban on any of them. I am afraid of the nutjobs that seem to have no trouble buying them, or finding a friend or relative, to 'borrow' from. There really is no recreation need of them, nor does the casual gun owner really need one. There are a few exceptions, and those can be addressed, but it shouldn't be simple for anyone to just walk into the local Walmart and buy one.

Anything can be used as weapon, can't ban everything. You don't even need a weapon to kill. Guns make it less labor intensive, less risky, clean and efficient. Going semiautomatic, just makes it easy to kill more people, quickly. If a high body count is the goal, a bomb would be the next choice, but that isn't something most people are as comfortable messing with, since they don't come ready to use, or in a DIY kit off Ebay. The point is that here in the US, we've been having at least one mass shooting event, every year, usually more. Some more deadly than others. Semiautomaticas are a common theme, just like in video games. I don't know what motivates the mass shooters, most don't seem to have much of a criminal, or violent history. I do know there isn't any real need for most people to own a gun, which allows them to throw out 30 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger.

A few points here...

1. Tell someone who has used an AR on an armed intruder and pumped them full of lead that they didn't really "need" it. You might get a fairly stout response.

2. True, you can't make everything illegal, nor should we. If you're afraid of the nut jobs then the get armed. If guns were made illegal do you think all the thugs would turn them in?

3. Some of the best times with me and my boys are when we go down to the local tractor supply store and get some tanerite. Then we pull out the high powers, ARs, whatever.... and just blow stuff up. It is so much fun! Don't knock it till you've tried it. Then we may do some target shooting or maybe some clays. Doesn't matter. It is tons of fun and great bonding time with my kids. Oh, and you've got an itch to go breaking in our house and threatening our lives, my boys and I will defend if needed. They know their guns well. (yes, they own guns they have actually purchased with lawn mowing money) Are we just backwoods hicks? Nope. Kids are in high school and junior high, they are national honor society students involved in everything from student council to football, baseball, band, and hunting and fishing and too much shit for me to keep up with!!

I guess I really don't "need " that recreational time with my family....but would you like Uncle Samuel to tell me I can't??

HarveyH55 wrote:There really is no recreation need of them, nor does the casual gun owner really need one.

HarveyH55 wrote: There are a few exceptions, and those can be addressed, but it shouldn't be simple for anyone to just walk into the local Walmart and buy one.

HarveyH55 wrote: Anything can be used as weapon, can't ban everything.

HarveyH55 wrote: Guns make it less labor intensive, less risky, clean and efficient.

HarveyH55 wrote: Going semiautomatic, just makes it easy to kill more people, quickly.

HarveyH55 wrote: If a high body count is the goal,

HarveyH55 wrote: I do know there isn't any real need for most people to own a gun,

HarveyH55 wrote: which allows them to throw out 30 rounds, as fast as they can pull the trigger.

dehammer wrote:

James___ wrote:It was originally so that Americans would know how to use firearms if they were drafted.

Wrong. It was so that American would be armed if a tyrant try to take over the country. Those that drafted it stated that.

"The N.R.A. was founded in 1871 by a group of former Union Army officers dismayed that so many Northern soldiers, often poorly trained, had been scarcely capable of using their weapons."