Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Trump and Clinton agree on Gun Control


Recommended Posts

I found this to be one of the most interesting parts of the debate.  I imagine the NRA isn't particularly fond of Trump's stance.  I've said in the past I don't think any person on a No-Fly list should be able to purchase or own a firearm.....but it would be untruthful of me to say the process of being added to that list doesn't concern me.  What say, Ye?  

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-surprising-agreement-between-trump-and-clinton-on-gun-control-020212914.html

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

I found this to be one of the most interesting parts of the debate.  I imagine the NRA isn't particularly fond of Trump's stance.  I've said in the past I don't think any person on a No-Fly list should be able to purchase or own a firearm.....but it would be untruthful of me to say the process of being added to that list doesn't concern me.  What say, Ye?  

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-surprising-agreement-between-trump-and-clinton-on-gun-control-020212914.html

GO RV, then BV

We have had this discussion before, and I have not changed my stance, but I am glad to see you have at least qualified your opinion based on how a person can be added to the no fly list and then have no recourse to be permanently removed from said list.  To me, it goes back to what Franklin said (or more accurately, what we have come to believe he said) about giving up freedom for security.  It should not be done because you will never be 100% secure but once rights are given up it can be impossible to recoup them.

I know I’m going out on a limb here by asking you to respond to this question, but what the heck.  Since the Perverted Islamic Terrorists are using the internet and social media to recruit new members, shouldn’t someone on the no fly list also be denied their 1st Amendment rights along with their 2nd?  After all, it is the same logic used to deny our Constitutional Right.  Since many of the recent PITs have been making explosive devices in their homes, should someone on the no fly list also give up their 4th Amendment rights regarding illegal searches?  See the slippery slope we can easily be barreling down, all for the sake of a false sense of security.

Put me down in the still against column.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RV ME said:

We have had this discussion before, and I have not changed my stance, but I am glad to see you have at least qualified your opinion based on how a person can be added to the no fly list and then have no recourse to be permanently removed from said list.  To me, it goes back to what Franklin said (or more accurately, what we have come to believe he said) about giving up freedom for security.  It should not be done because you will never be 100% secure but once rights are given up it can be impossible to recoup them.

I know I’m going out on a limb here by asking you to respond to this question, but what the heck.  Since the Perverted Islamic Terrorists are using the internet and social media to recruit new members, shouldn’t someone on the no fly list also be denied their 1st Amendment rights along with their 2nd?  After all, it is the same logic used to deny our Constitutional Right.  Since many of the recent PITs have been making explosive devices in their homes, should someone on the no fly list also give up their 4th Amendment rights regarding illegal searches?  See the slippery slope we can easily be barreling down, all for the sake of a false sense of security.

Put me down in the still against column.

 

I'm not sure how to answer that....other than to say, common sense tells me it's impossible to take away a person's 1st Amendment rights in regards to accessing and voicing through social media.  Just as it's impossible to keep a person from getting a weapon illegally.

And I know I've beat you down over the years, but your above highlighted jab disclaimer isn't always necessary.  :lol: 

GO RV, then BV

Edited by Shabibilicious
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I am confused.  If, as you say here, common sense tells you it is impossible to keep someone from getting a weapon illegally, why would you support the denial of Constitutional rights while admitting it will do nothing to alleviate the problem?

As for denying someone their first Amendment rights, it is not that difficult for the government to do.  Ask the internet filmmaker Hildabeast falsely accused of causing Benghazi.  He was thrown into jail and no longer had 1st, 2nd, or any other rights.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RV ME said:

Now I am confused.  If, as you say here, common sense tells you it is impossible to keep someone from getting a weapon illegally, why would you support the denial of Constitutional rights while admitting it will do nothing to alleviate the problem?

As for denying someone their first Amendment rights, it is not that difficult for the government to do.  Ask the internet filmmaker Hildabeast falsely accused of causing Benghazi.  He was thrown into jail and no longer had 1st, 2nd, or any other rights.

I never said "common sense" in regard to procuring a weapon.  Read it again.  As to your other point, I'm talking about your everyday Joe that hasn't been arrested and has access to all avenues of social media available in countless locations.....nothing more.  

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well technically, you inferred the common sense part when you start off the sentence “Just as”.  But I do not want to get bogged down with arguing trivial semantics when we clearly agree that no law will stop a person from getting a gun.  Since you agree with that, why would you be willing to deny citizens their rights while admitting the law will not stop someone from getting a gun?

And please address the slippery slope this would put us on.  Because I am talking about an ordinary Joe being put on the watch list incorrectly or unfairly.  In my lifetime it seems like if the professional politicians pass a law, that does not mean the issue is closed.  Usually it means the poly-tics tinker with the law and it gets revised and expanded over and over again over time.  It is my contention that in a short time, just being on the no fly list would be used as “proof” of your guilt, therefore you would not be worthy of any Constitutional rights including your 1st.  After all, if you are criminal enough to be on the no fly list, what would stop the government from detaining you, even temporarily, under the guise of “public safety”?

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, RV ME said:

Well technically, you inferred the common sense part when you start off the sentence “Just as”.  But I do not want to get bogged down with arguing trivial semantics when we clearly agree that no law will stop a person from getting a gun.  Since you agree with that, why would you be willing to deny citizens their rights while admitting the law will not stop someone from getting a gun?

And please address the slippery slope this would put us on.  Because I am talking about an ordinary Joe being put on the watch list incorrectly or unfairly.  In my lifetime it seems like if the professional politicians pass a law, that does not mean the issue is closed.  Usually it means the poly-tics tinker with the law and it gets revised and expanded over and over again over time.  It is my contention that in a short time, just being on the no fly list would be used as “proof” of your guilt, therefore you would not be worthy of any Constitutional rights including your 1st.  After all, if you are criminal enough to be on the no fly list, what would stop the government from detaining you, even temporarily, under the guise of “public safety”?

Oh without a doubt, it's not only a slippery slope, it's a treacherous one as well.  As most all of you know, I am most certainly for a form of gun control.....particularly enforcing the laws on the books.  Also, if I had it my way (hahaha) I would take it a step further and add an "idiot" clause to said books.  Here are some examples of situations that would fall under the idiot clause....Any parent that possesses a gun and thinks it's okay to leave it lying around for an innocent toddler to accidentally shoot himself or his baby sister (IDIOT)......Any parent that thinks it's okay for their adolescent child to brandish a lethal looking pellet gun in public (IDIOT).....Any part-time hunter required to unload his weapon before crossing a public right-of-way, and the only way he knows to unload it is through pulling the trigger (IDIOT).  Training, training, training.  In my opinion, just because it's an American's constitutional right to bear arms, it's not always right, particularly if they have no clue the power they possess.  A similar example;  even though a driver's license is a privilege, not a right, and a person passes the required test.....some people just shouldn't be behind the wheel.  That's my take on gun control....make it rain.  B)

GO RV, then BV 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2016 at 10:34 AM, RV ME said:

We have had this discussion before, and I have not changed my stance, but I am glad to see you have at least qualified your opinion based on how a person can be added to the no fly list and then have no recourse to be permanently removed from said list.  To me, it goes back to what Franklin said (or more accurately, what we have come to believe he said) about giving up freedom for security.  It should not be done because you will never be 100% secure but once rights are given up it can be impossible to recoup them.

I know I’m going out on a limb here by asking you to respond to this question, but what the heck.  Since the Perverted Islamic Terrorists are using the internet and social media to recruit new members, shouldn’t someone on the no fly list also be denied their 1st Amendment rights along with their 2nd?  After all, it is the same logic used to deny our Constitutional Right.  Since many of the recent PITs have been making explosive devices in their homes, should someone on the no fly list also give up their 4th Amendment rights regarding illegal searches?  See the slippery slope we can easily be barreling down, all for the sake of a false sense of security.

Put me down in the still against column.

 

RV ME, I will stand with you on this. You give up one right, you will lose another. All that we have to do is look at the list that our soon to be gone President put out on who could be considered as a domestic terrorist. Make that list, now your on the no-fly list. Now there goes your 2nd amendment rights. I don't like it one bit. Without the 2nd, you can't protect the 1st.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 8th ID said:

RV ME, I will stand with you on this. You give up one right, you will lose another. All that we have to do is look at the list that our soon to be gone President put out on who could be considered as a domestic terrorist. Make that list, now your on the no-fly list. Now there goes your 2nd amendment rights. I don't like it one bit. Without the 2nd, you can't protect the 1st.

Agreed, rights are not to be given up for a false sense of security.

3 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Oh without a doubt, it's not only a slippery slope, it's a treacherous one as well.  As most all of you know, I am most certainly for a form of gun control.....particularly enforcing the laws on the books.  Also, if I had it my way (hahaha) I would take it a step further and add an "idiot" clause to said books.  Here are some examples of situations that would fall under the idiot clause....Any parent that possesses a gun and thinks it's okay to leave it lying around for an innocent toddler to accidentally shoot himself or his baby sister (IDIOT)......Any parent that thinks it's okay for their adolescent child to brandish a lethal looking pellet gun in public (IDIOT).....Any part-time hunter required to unload his weapon before crossing a public right-of-way, and the only way he knows to unload it is through pulling the trigger (IDIOT).  Training, training, training.  In my opinion, just because it's an American's constitutional right to bear arms, it's not always right, particularly if they have no clue the power they possess.  A similar example;  even though a driver's license is a privilege, not a right, and a person passes the required test.....some people just shouldn't be behind the wheel.  That's my take on gun control....make it rain.  B)

GO RV, then BV 

I thought we were talking about using the no fly list to deny citizens their rights.  Glad to see we agree it would be a treacherous path to take, so I hope you have changed your opinion and would no longer be in favor.

As for the rest of your response and since you brought it up, if an idiot test should be used for gun ownership, clearly the same restriction should be attached to the right to vote.  Can’t pass the basic citizenship test, you cannot vote. If you can name a Kardashian, but not one of your Senators, you should not vote.  If you can’t name one of the four freedoms enumerated in the first Amendment, no vote for you.

democrates-ID.jpg

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RV ME said:

I thought we were talking about using the no fly list to deny citizens their rights.  Glad to see we agree it would be a treacherous path to take, so I hope you have changed your opinion and would no longer be in favor.

As for the rest of your response and since you brought it up, if an idiot test should be used for gun ownership, clearly the same restriction should be attached to the right to vote.  Can’t pass the basic citizenship test, you cannot vote. If you can name a Kardashian, but not one of your Senators, you should not vote.  If you can’t name one of the four freedoms enumerated in the first Amendment, no vote for you.

democrates-ID.jpg

I couldn't agree more. :twothumbs::bravo:

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RV ME said:

As for the rest of your response and since you brought it up, if an idiot test should be used for gun ownership, clearly the same restriction should be attached to the right to vote.  Can’t pass the basic citizenship test, you cannot vote. If you can name a Kardashian, but not one of your Senators, you should not vote.  If you can’t name one of the four freedoms enumerated in the first Amendment, no vote for you.

There should absolutely be an Idiot test for voting rights.......Donald should go first.  :peace:

635853512231271622-0b283a5a331d8fec94b3f

GO RV, then BV

Edited by Shabibilicious
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

You know me, RV ME......you want to take it to the gutter, I'm game.  :D

GO RV, then BV

Speaking of in the gutter, couldn’t find a clever meme on the subject, but I do remember when Pelosi (an endless supply of stupidity) said that every dollar “invested” in food stamps returns $1.79 to the economy.

I guess there is the possibility that she isn’t the stoopid one, but something tells me that if we all just went on food stamps the economy would not grow by 79%, just sayin.  And she’s been elected how many times?

Call it liberal math or liberal logic, it doesn’t matter.  If it’s liberal, it is flawed. ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Botzwana said:

Shabb is a known liar....Trump never said that meme.

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2015/12/10/fact-check-did-trump-say-98-republicans-dumb/77099822/

Will Shabbs come back to erase it and apologize?  I bet no.  Liberals do not apologize for anything.

Again, I'm just following Trump's lead, which is.......apologize for nothing, facts don't matter, and the truth is what I say it is.  :D  And one more time, for the record.  I'm not a Liberal........I'm just more Liberal than you all.  :eyebrows: 

GO RV, then BV

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.