Become a Patron!
To Date which US Presidential candidate will you be voting for & why?
- Thread starter SMOKIE
- Start date
- Status
All the snipped out stuff has been addressed by others. Currently, you propose to change the laws (and constitution) to fit your desires.
As far as the Hellcat comment, nice dodge. What if the government outlawed any cars > 150 horsepower and stated all cars in violation would be collected and crushed?
I ran across an interseting article....although I'm sure weed will stuff his fingers in his ears over it.
After the Socialist President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez made the possesion of private firearms and ammunition illegal in the year 2012....we now come to the year 2016, where under the current Socialist President........
"Caracas is now the world’s most violent city(excluding those considered to be at war), with police reporting nearly 120 homicides per 100,000 residents in 2015....."
It would appear that under the Utopian wet dream of an unarmed Socialist society......murder runs rampant..who would have thunk it.
After the Socialist President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez made the possesion of private firearms and ammunition illegal in the year 2012....we now come to the year 2016, where under the current Socialist President........
"Caracas is now the world’s most violent city(excluding those considered to be at war), with police reporting nearly 120 homicides per 100,000 residents in 2015....."
It would appear that under the Utopian wet dream of an unarmed Socialist society......murder runs rampant..who would have thunk it.
No shit tickets, rampant starvation and shortages, mass riots and prisoners resorting to eating fellow inmates for food.
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Lol, my vape gear collection says otherwise
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Thank you for your helpful suggestion. The same can be said for your participation in this topic.
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Nice car!
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Thank you for your participation.
1. It would be more appropriate to quote the entire text in whole as I have to provide the full scope, i.e. "To protect my family, I shot a man with my fuzzy bunny gun." vs "I shot a man with my fuzzy bunny gun."
2. Nothing is unregulated regardless of constitutional language, i.e. You can't yell "fire" at a theater nor can you slander another person citing the first amendment as your right.
3. The founding fathers included Militia as part of the language, which I have respected and acknowledged it's necessity to the extent of fuzzy bunny guns. My prior post have already mentioned this. If there are others, please enlighten me. Otherwise, the debate done and I have my answer.
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Thank you for the information.
You said "It was the ONLY thing keeping Japanese rape and pillage machine from invading us in WW2." So I presumed this was within the United States. I would have broadened my search otherwise. In addition, you placed a focus on the word "ONLY" which infers significance, but I don't see any mention of results of the gun drive from your reference of the American Rifleman article that turned the tide. In fact, according to the article, it was when we joined the fight, military not civilian, that won the war. I will research more and see if anything says otherwise.
Any warring nation with invasive intent would have the same notion as Isoroku Ymamoto, but I appreciate the information regardless. I wanted to know how armed civilians were "the ONLY thing keeping Japanese rape and pillage machine from invading us," not whether a Japanese rape and pillage threat is real, which I believe it was. By the way, your significance on civilian contribution seems to belittle the military contribution to this end...
Please elaborate a bit more on how the security of the 1st amendment is hinged on the unregulated interpretation of the 2nd. I fail to see the connection...
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Due to apparent drug reference, I am now Deed, not Weed, for clarification. You may now continue to swing your super manliness cock of power around as well. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
Wrong on me debasing the Military effort.
Since you are just a fucking troll and or to god damned stupid to continue breathing free air please get the fuck out of the country and or removing yourself from the gene pool since your pussy retarded shit need not spread.
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Thank you for your participation! Yes, these ideas regarding gun regulations are not new, although requiring regulations is quite different than change the constitution, which I am not in favor of. I provided my personal opinion regarding what I think would be appropriate, but it is in no way a firm decision as we are still in discussion regarding the need beyond well armed militia.
Regarding the hell cat reference, I will still make the argument of NEED vs RISK, but in this instance, I would contest that the RISK of Hellcat and other >150 hp vehicles does NOT post additional risk based on existing laws and regulations, thus there is no additional NEED justification required. So don't fuck with the cars.
It's a funny one for sure...Trumps in Bernie is window dressing so the stupid can live under the illusion the DNC is honest.Hilary..I doubt she will ever be held accountable for her crimes,but I have a hard time seeing how after all the crap she's pulled she can be a viable candidate.....
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Interesting read. Thank you for the information.
only to a castrate would this be considered an insult......I'll let you in on a little secret...your mama lied...size does matter....and girls really don't like gentlemen.....except to trade skin care products with,and to gossip about men with.
Last edited:
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Thank you for the information. I have agreed on the need for fuzzy bunny guns for militia needs and did not propose banning the possession of any firearms or ammunition in general. However, this reference did not specify that the lack of fuzzy bunny guns are the cause for this homicide rate, not did it infer that with fuzzy bunny guns, things would be much better. Please clarify the point you're trying to make. You are correlating two separate things without corroborating evidence that I can observe.
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Thank you for your participation.
1. Yes, but to quote only a portion is to obscure by omission
2. Establishes the precedent that no constitutional right is unregulated regardless of language as argument against the point you made regarding infringement
3. Very much so. It was mentioned to emphasize point 1 regarding complete text reference
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
I see your fingers are firmly in place....
I'm trying to find the correlation and am asking for clarification. But you're welcome to read it how you like.
No one NEEDS a 700 hp car, but plenty of people want them. And they are more dangerous to bystanders than a prius.
Are you being obtuse about this one???
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
I appreciate your integrity regarding your choice of words
*Ducks to move out of the way of the 10' super manliness cock of power*
Did ya'll see this photo.....it appears Bernie Sanders just nodded off at a memorial day commeration.....there were no obese BLM activists to keep his attention....
I suppose this is understandable...seeing as how the other Democrat presidentil candidates view of dead American soldiers is.."What does it really matter"
I suppose this is understandable...seeing as how the other Democrat presidentil candidates view of dead American soldiers is.."What does it really matter"
Last edited:
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
I apologize for having taken the conversation off track.
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Oh absolutely not being obtuse! I don't believe that a 700 hp car is any more or less dangerous than a Prius because there are regulations in place regarding vehicles to increase their safety, i.e. speed limits, annual registration, driving tests, insurance, vehicle safety standards, etc. Obviously it does not provide a 100% guarantee that they would be followed and accidents or ill intent prevented, but the regulations are in place to reduce the occurrence thereof and the increased risk from hp is minimal in my opinion.
If regulations are in place which would reduce the RISK of fuzzy bunny guns to regular gun levels, then there would be no issue. However, because fuzzy bunny guns are fuzzy because of their efficiency and thus RISK, I'm not sure how this would work. Regulating it would simply make it less fuzzy... The other approach is to increase the significance of the NEED, which would justify the RISK and forego regulations to begin with. This is my approach.
The bolded part of your statement strongly suggests you don't argue effectively. Automobile insurance tables prove you are wrong.
Quote:
"A national survey of law enforcement shows officers believe many proposed gun control measures — including bans on assault weapons — will be ineffective at reducing violent crime and that legal gun ownership by private citizens would prove a better safeguard.
Among the findings of a survey by the industry website PoliceOne, which tallied responses from 15,000 verified active and retired law enforcement professionals, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership or accessibility, editor Doug Wyllie said.
The survey found that 91.5 percent of respondents believe a federal ban on the manufacture or sale of semi-automatic weapons would have no effect or a negative effect on the reduction of violent crime. Though a national assault weapons ban is dead in the water, numerous states — including Maryland, Connecticut and New York — have adopted or enhanced their own bans."
source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rcement-professionals-say-gun-restr/?page=all
That's what the people who are "on the front lines" think.
"A national survey of law enforcement shows officers believe many proposed gun control measures — including bans on assault weapons — will be ineffective at reducing violent crime and that legal gun ownership by private citizens would prove a better safeguard.
Among the findings of a survey by the industry website PoliceOne, which tallied responses from 15,000 verified active and retired law enforcement professionals, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership or accessibility, editor Doug Wyllie said.
The survey found that 91.5 percent of respondents believe a federal ban on the manufacture or sale of semi-automatic weapons would have no effect or a negative effect on the reduction of violent crime. Though a national assault weapons ban is dead in the water, numerous states — including Maryland, Connecticut and New York — have adopted or enhanced their own bans."
source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rcement-professionals-say-gun-restr/?page=all
That's what the people who are "on the front lines" think.
"Mr.President, Mr.President.....South Korea just launched a missle....."
"Wha..What did you say somethizzzzzzzz...zzzzzzzz."
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
I apologize, my original post was in response to TIME, not you. Sorry for the confusion.
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Automobile insurance table provides frequency statistics which also correlates people's behavior to incidents. Objectively on a per incident basis, Hellcats don't do significantly more damage and pose significantly more risk. Similarly, the argument is not that since the percentage of mass shootings are done with fuzzy guns that they should be regulated, but that on a per incident basis, they pose a significantly higher risk due to efficiency that warrants a similarly significant need to forego regulations.
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Yes, and I agree with it mostly. Although I don't see how regulations would inhibit gun ownership, just like how car registrations, vehicle inspections, and driving tests does not inhibit car ownership. Again, I'm not debating to absolve gun ownership, only inquiring on the need for fuzzy bunny guns to be exempt from regulation.
But it isn't a per incident basis we're talking about. Overall, your argument is risk of the guns in question being available is it not? Consider the automatic pistol with interchangable 17 shot magazines.
They are the Hellcat in my analogy.
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Thank you for your participation.
The risk assessment is on a per incident basis for fair assessment, otherwise, we'd be having a "only fuzzy bunny guns are allowed because most crimes are done with regular guns!" argument. The question wasn't regarding the risk, unless you'd like to contest that fuzzy bunny guns does not pose a greater risk due to efficiency in generating body count per incident / time frame. I thought that was already established. The argument/question was regarding the need for fuzzy bunny guns given the risk so as to exclude from regulation. Automatic pistol with interchangeable 17 shot mags are fuzzy bunny guns that pose a greater risk from the following calculations
30 second period at crowded place with unlimited mags
Automatic = Empies 33-round extended magazine in 1.5 seconds (glock website) = .75 sec a mag + 3 sec reload (1 sec if you're good, but let's assume not) = 3.75 sec a mag. 29.25 (gun already loaded)/3.75 = 7.8 + 1 cycles or about 9 mags total. That's a potential 9*17 = 153 bod counts
Semi automatic = Roughly 180rds/min (based on various references, can be argued against) = 3rd/sec = 3.3 sec a mag + 3 sec reload = 6.3 sec a mag. 26.7 (gun already loaded) / 6.3 = 4.2 + 1 cycles or about 5 mags total. That's a potential 5 * 10 = 50 body counts
Net comparison yields that the automatic pistol with 17 rd mags carry 3x more risk than a semi auto with 10 rd mags. Faster reload time only increases total body count on both sides, and in fact, increases the body count ratio of fuzzy bunny guns, so let's just assume 3 secs?
To follow with the Hellcat analogy, if the Hellcat explodes on impact, then it carries significantly more risk per incident than a Prius, otherwise, similar risk.
Your analogy isn't correct. The insurance companies calculate premiums based on payable incidences calculated as RISK. Although including geography, and age, certain cars have higher premiums due to inherent risk. A VERY fast car is inherently riskier than a slower one.
Hellcats are legal, and unrestricted.
Your deflection is noted.
Hellcats are legal, and unrestricted.
Your deflection is noted.
VaporJoe
_ the end has arrived _
Staff member
VU Owner
VU Senior Leadership
VU Senior Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Platinum Contributor
Press Corps
ECF Refugee
Vape Media
Member For 5 Years
Reddit Exile
VU Patreon
Deedalicious
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
You are correct. Insurance companies do calculate premiums based on payable incidences which are calculated as RISK. However, I question your comprehension of this statement. The more payable incidences ratio per vehicle type, i.e. Hellcats and the comparable vehicles, and the higher the risk also incorporates the type of person that drives said vehicle and the likely hood that they will behave in a manner to create payable incidences. That is why the risk is assessed as a whole which includes the geography, age, etc. that you mentioned and not just on the vehicle itself. It merely represents the likely usage of the vehicle and the probability of creating a payable incident. This does not translate to the object (Hellcat) having more significant risk, but the usage, and probable payable incident, of the object that carries more risk. The associated factors are not considered in the gun reference to simplify the comparison. Otherwise, the inference would be that fuzzy bunny gun owners are more dangerous and I am not willing to make that assumption. Thus, Hellcats are legal, but not unrestricted. Still needs to follow the same rules as other cars.
The risk of fuzzy bunny guns are inherent by design, to be fuzzy, you must be significantly more efficient in creating body count. The risk of Hellcats are not inherent by design, to be a Hellcat, you must be significantly faster than other cars, not that you'll explode on impact and cause significantly more damage.
I apologize if my response was interpreted as deflective.
He's a demagogue. Plain and simple. He's saying what people want to hear.
He isn't an outsider. He's BRAGGED about how he had politicians in his pocket in the past.
He hasn't TRULY self-funded. He LOANED his campaign money, which he is now able to pay back. He is now accepting money from the SAME "Special Interests" as all the other politicians. He even ADMITTED that he WOULD NOT SELF FUND his campaign for the General Election.
He is a Liar. He is a Demagogue. He will say anything to get elected.
If you truly think that he is "different" you're in for a rude awakening if he becomes President.
- Status