Talking about honest lies

A Lie requires Intent.

I understand your concerns and, unfortunately, I don't know how to bridge the divide on this one, so I will think it out. Both sides ultimately want the same thing: to live their lives without fear of random violence, provide for our families, leave a better world for our kids, etc. Nobody should have a problem with law abiding citizens owning guns, if that's what they want.

I think there has always been a limit on the types of weapons citizens can own (i.e. bombs, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc.) So, I would have to imagine that there is somewhere between AR's and Nukes that is an acceptable limitation. We just need to figure out what that line is, quantify it, and set it in stone.

I also think education will be key. The state requires a certain amount of training in order to drive - is there a minimum amount of education that we can agree on that the state can require before a person can own a gun? Some countries with permissive gun laws mandate comprehensive training.

Is this a ridiculous approach?

Absolutely correct... its a great way to expend a lot of ammo and lose tons of accuracy. I personally think they are completely stupid but that doesn't mean that they are machine guns. but that is how the bATFe reclassified them for banning.

A = A is both true and accurate. But that is probably the kind of models we are speaking of.

How did the MSM try to "dispell" and "debunk" the #SuitcaseGate video???

@AntiFish03 if I am to be shot at in the future, I prefer someone with a bump stock over someone with a nice aim and semi automatic.

Especially at a Distance.

@William Dinan, you just advanced to level 8!

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1334982225088159744 : PA legislator sent letter to congress to reject their electoral college

The problem with those laws and what they push is that it leads a diminishment of unalienable rights. (in the case of the 2nd Amendment its the tools to protect oneself from an aggressor). Firearms are currently the greatest equalizer in a disparity of physical capabilities. you don't have to be excessively strong. or super quick and agile, to wield a firearm in a defensive manner.

"unailenable rights" always sounded to me like a challange. "Hold my beer!"

Do you limit someones right to vote, or speak because they don't have formal education? Do you limit a persons ability to speak because they didn't get a permissions slip from the government?

Like swimming with jellyfish? Free will in a free market is dangerous? Or possibly harmless depending of environment?

Im not sure what you mean. The will is also a product of data absorbed, so the term "free" isnt really applicable.

it is neither free, nor caged. It just is.

General thoughts, the importance of legitimacy has been expressed for the SCOTUS. How much concern for legitimacy should/would the court consider for other branches in a decision?

The executive branch doesn’t need convincing

What is the latest? 0

Your meme could be considered either way without understanding intention.

Also the limits on what a private citizen could legally own is less than 100 years old (National Firearms Act of 1934).

@inwa Oh, that was what you meant. 😄 Sorry. It derives from a discussion of free will in which we ended up finding that if humans have free will, so does jellyfish. And since a free market is dependent on a free will, the sea would be a free market.

Probably posted before

It already is! Just ask Asean nations of the South China Sea! Lol

🙂

Expect the retraction from ABC News 🤣

And finally I'll end my rant on this with the fact that there are over 20,000 firearms regulations in the US, and the states. Many of which already allow for everything that the Gun Control proponents are asking for again. Except the one explicitly disallowed piece by previous legislation. a gun registry. I'm not going to go into huge detail on this because its super lengthy but the reason why can be found in researching gun control in pre-nazi Germany. The Germans forced registration of firearms on its citizens as a way to curb violence. It was then used by the Nazi's to confiscate the firearms from the Jews before throwing them into concentration camps.

Not true.

Germany under Gitler released the legislation on firearms.

They basically armed their people.

@IamFLAGG that’s true they sent a bunch of workers home after the ballots were processed. No one told the poll watchers to leave and the ballots in the video were already processed in front of observers and then counted per law

@AntiFish03 what does Germany have to do with modern day gun laws.

Has anybody seen the new clip of Biden, hopefully he's just high on pain medication? The DNC should have run Andrew Yang. I guess the DNC knew whoever they ran was likely to beat Trump, we couldn't possibly have someone with policies against the orthodoxy, so we have a near dead and political opportunist same old same old agenda. Hope it's different this time is not a viable plan.

You're right, I had to go double check myself, Nazi's did loosen ownership rules with the requirement of registration. in 1928, Then in 1938 the Jewish community was forbidden from owning firearms and any arms they did have were confiscated.

@busillis nothing would have been better from going to a black president to a white president to a Chinese or Jewish president. It would be like electing someone named Hussein after 9/11

I'm just talkin about policy.

Yang and sanders have interesting policies

I would vote for either

Idk

Can't have that

What would be trumps nick name for yang