I don't think it's a situation that comes up enough to have a term (at least, if there is I haven't heard of it). The closest concept I can think of is precautionary savings, so maybe you could call it precautionary spending?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
And "Politician = Hitler" signs are practically standard issue at protests.
Maybe the protest you go to.
The thing here is that Trump has actually advocated for actual horrible positions that lead to the holocaust and is presenting a fascist policy plank. Calling him Hitler has merit because, well, he's pretty god damn comparable.
HOWEVER.
Not one single person, I don't care of what political persuasion, that has ever held up a "Politician=Hitler" sign is reasonable. They are geese. The fact you are defending these geese because they're your geese and not disgusted they've taken the political discourse down to kindergarten level is pretty revolting.
I really wish there was a firearms manufacturer index fund I could go long on before every democratic presidential election victory.
Well, it wouldn't be an index fund because it's not tracking an index (Dow, Nasdaq, S&P etc.) :biggrin:
However, there may be a mutual fund that fits the bill you're looking for. There is VICEX , but that covers alcohol, tobacco, the defense industry, and gambling as well
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
I really wish there was a firearms manufacturer index fund I could go long on before every democratic presidential election victory.
Well, it wouldn't be an index fund because it's not tracking an index (Dow, Nasdaq, S&P etc.) :biggrin:
However, there may be a mutual fund that fits the bill you're looking for. There is VICEX , but that covers alcohol, tobacco, the defense industry, and gambling as well
Ah, but the dow/nasdaq/etc are, aside from the actual exchange, just lists of companies that fit a certain criteria! You could create an index of all arms manufactures on the NYSE for example
Most the companies are privately held. Of the major brands Ruger, Smith&Wesson and Taurus are the only ones I can think of that are publicly traded. Remington, Colt, FN, H&K, Glock, Beretta, Sig, Kahr, Browning, Armalite and most the boutique black rifle manufacturers(Rock River Arms, DPMS, Bushmaster, Palmetto State, etc) are all privately owned.
And "Politician = Hitler" signs are practically standard issue at protests.
Maybe the protest you go to.
What the hell is your problem? FYI, I don't go to protests, but in the Bay Area I see them all the damn time. They're almost exclusively leftist/liberal and holy shit the number of "Conservative = Hitler" signs is ridiculous.
The thing here is that Trump has actually advocated for actual horrible positions that lead to the holocaust and is presenting a fascist policy plank. Calling him Hitler has merit because, well, he's pretty god damn comparable.
HOWEVER.
Not one single person, I don't care of what political persuasion, that has ever held up a "Politician=Hitler" sign is reasonable. They are geese. The fact you are defending these geese because they're your geese and not disgusted they've taken the political discourse down to kindergarten level is pretty revolting.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you. Granted, I could have been more clear and said that I just ignore people that carry those signs around because they're all geese advertising their gooseness and not worth the time or energy to acknowledge them, but you saying I'm defending this dude cause he's my goose? Fuck off with that noise. You're the reason that discourse is as low as it is, because people like you always jump to the most negative reading possible and run with it. Did you bother to read the rest of my post?
I also think it's adorable that you compare Trump to Hitler and then agree with Heffling's post that
And "Politician = Hitler" signs are practically standard issue at protests.
Maybe the protest you go to.
What the hell is your problem? FYI, I don't go to protests, but in the Bay Area I see them all the damn time. They're almost exclusively leftist/liberal and holy shit the number of "Conservative = Hitler" signs is ridiculous.
The thing here is that Trump has actually advocated for actual horrible positions that lead to the holocaust and is presenting a fascist policy plank. Calling him Hitler has merit because, well, he's pretty god damn comparable.
HOWEVER.
Not one single person, I don't care of what political persuasion, that has ever held up a "Politician=Hitler" sign is reasonable. They are geese. The fact you are defending these geese because they're your geese and not disgusted they've taken the political discourse down to kindergarten level is pretty revolting.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you. Granted, I could have been more clear and said that I just ignore people that carry those signs around because they're all geese advertising their gooseness and not worth the time or energy to acknowledge them, but you saying I'm defending this dude cause he's my goose? Fuck off with that noise. You're the reason that discourse is as low as it is, because people like you always jump to the most negative reading possible and run with it. Did you bother to read the rest of my post?
I also think it's adorable that you compare Trump to Hitler and then agree with Heffling's post that
Is it reasonable to look at the picture and go "Oh good, a bunch of assclowns ... Basically fuck these people and their opinions?" I don't think it is.
"Not a defense", but yet you see people in the Bay Area who have the Hitler signs and that's a problem.
I have anecdotal evidence of people here in the Bible Belt putting up signs that say "2nd Amendment the Liberals", but I don't consider it a fair representation of the entire US.
However, you explode and stamp your feet like the above post and you wonder why so many of us here feel that people in your mindset are unreasonable?
And "Politician = Hitler" signs are practically standard issue at protests.
Maybe the protest you go to.
What the hell is your problem? FYI, I don't go to protests, but in the Bay Area I see them all the damn time. They're almost exclusively leftist/liberal and holy shit the number of "Conservative = Hitler" signs is ridiculous.
The thing here is that Trump has actually advocated for actual horrible positions that lead to the holocaust and is presenting a fascist policy plank. Calling him Hitler has merit because, well, he's pretty god damn comparable.
HOWEVER.
Not one single person, I don't care of what political persuasion, that has ever held up a "Politician=Hitler" sign is reasonable. They are geese. The fact you are defending these geese because they're your geese and not disgusted they've taken the political discourse down to kindergarten level is pretty revolting.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you. Granted, I could have been more clear and said that I just ignore people that carry those signs around because they're all geese advertising their gooseness and not worth the time or energy to acknowledge them, but you saying I'm defending this dude cause he's my goose? Fuck off with that noise. You're the reason that discourse is as low as it is, because people like you always jump to the most negative reading possible and run with it. Did you bother to read the rest of my post?
I also think it's adorable that you compare Trump to Hitler and then agree with Heffling's post that
Is it reasonable to look at the picture and go "Oh good, a bunch of assclowns ... Basically fuck these people and their opinions?" I don't think it is.
"Not a defense", but yet you see people in the Bay Area who have the Hitler signs and that's a problem.
Yes? In all honesty, I'm not sure what you mean here? Do you think that I'm saying because Bay Area liberals use Hitler signs it's ok for gun owners to use them? Cause if so, let me answer you - If you carry a Pol = Hitler sign to a protest you are a goose and I'm going to ignore you.
I have anecdotal evidence of people here in the Bible Belt putting up signs that say "2nd Amendment the Liberals", but I don't consider it a fair representation of the entire US.
And yet you explode and stamp your feet like the above post and you wonder why so many of us here feel that people in your mindset are unreasonable?
And "Politician = Hitler" signs are practically standard issue at protests, I really couldn't care if someone is walking around with one.
Does that sound or read to you like I approve? Because I don't. It means I don't care. But you didn't bother to clarify, did you? You're perfectly fine classifying me in your mind as someone that sees a Hillary = Hitler sign and thinks "Yes, good point, well made!" Anyway, I clarified in my followup post.
Besides, if "Politician = Hitler" means over-the-top, irrational hatred, man there sure are a lot of over-the-top irrationally hating people at liberal protests. Do you really want that to be your baseline? I don't think so, so maybe we can agree to not define groups of thousands of people by a goose with a Hitler sign?
Does that read or sound to you that I want the discussion to devolve to the level of people that carry Pol = Hitler signs? Or maybe that means I would like us to maintain the level of discourse that ignores the obvious geese?
You implied without asking for clarification that I attend protests where people carry Hitler signs, of which you think I approve. You then claim I'm defending them, and that they're "my geese" and make assumptions at my level of disgust. At which point you claim this "fact" is revolting. Have I about summed it up? What reaction would you expect?
Let's try this out. Talk to the people in this thread, with regards to what they're actually typing. If you would like clarification, ask for it. If it seems like someone is taking a position you find unbelievable/unreasonable/offensive, repeat what you believe their position to be and see if you've got it right. And don't characterize their posts with emotional connotations. Had you made that statement to my face, I would have been laughing while telling you you're a goose cause what you said was ridiculous.
Let's not scour the bowels of the internet and protest images and then declare the opposing side revolting cause of memes. Cause the people carrying those signs and making those memes aren't here. Sound good?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yes? In all honesty, I'm not sure what you mean here? Do you think that I'm saying because Bay Area liberals use Hitler signs it's ok for gun owners to use them? Cause if so, let me answer you - If you carry a Pol = Hitler sign to a protest you are a goose and I'm going to ignore you.
I don't think you approve of them, but I do see you immediately noting how the "bay area liberals" are when they have them, and it's a considerably different tone than you use towards those protesters up there.
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
is anyone coming for anyone's gun?
or are some gun sales not allowed?
Yeah, they're pulling some pretty obvious bullshit to restrict gun sales. That fits the profile, that liberals want your guns and will do whatever it takes to get them. One step at a time.
Really shouldn't be encouraging that way of thinking, unless that's actually where you stand in which case.... well, OK. At least own it.
Yes? In all honesty, I'm not sure what you mean here? Do you think that I'm saying because Bay Area liberals use Hitler signs it's ok for gun owners to use them? Cause if so, let me answer you - If you carry a Pol = Hitler sign to a protest you are a goose and I'm going to ignore you.
I don't think you approve of them, but I do see you immediately noting how the "bay area liberals" are when they have them, and it's a considerably different tone than you use towards those protesters up there.
Is that clear?
Tone is incredibly difficult to impart through text, and I may not have made myself as clear as I could have. I have become numb to those signs, because there are a considerable amount of them here during large protests. It is simply a function of location the politics of the people carrying them. I don't care who is carrying it or what their political beliefs are, I think they're geese.
My original intent when mentioning the bay area and left/liberals is that if Joshofalltrades and dispatch.o want to set the bar for over-the-top irrational hatred, pointing to the few morons that carry signs to protests among otherwise reasonable people is not a good bar to set. There were thousands of people at those protests. I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate being grouped in and dismissed along with those people and I don't do so. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
But they openly show contempt towards other people for things that are verifiably false and part of the package of goods you get when you become an NRA member.
Obama's been "fittin to take our guns" for 7.5 years. It hasn't happened.
But they have a belief system based on the fact that it is.
It's difficult not have contempt towards people who seek to maintain their ownership of deadly weapons when their reasons are based entirely on fantasy.
Yeahhhhh considering how many people on these boards get 40 awesomed for comparing Trump to Hitler I find the outrage here laughable.
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
It's less outrage and more "how can we have a valid, real-world discussion with people who believe this?" in seriousness.
Which is why I pointed out people in our own boards do it and are celebrated for doing so. Can you have valid, real-world conversations with most people on these forums? If yes, than you need to rethink your stance.
The long and short of it is that X=Hitler is really obvious shorthand. That's why everyone does it. It means exactly how much you read into it, which in your cars here is A Lot with a sprinkling of What's Good Faith? on top.
No one ever accused angry protestors having the cleanest, most sensitive slogans. The point is shock and short, easy images and comparisons and even some rhymes for a catchy slogan. As I said above, you saw some X=Hitler and read waaaaaaaaay more into it than was ideal.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
is anyone coming for anyone's gun?
or are some gun sales not allowed?
Yeah, they're pulling some pretty obvious bullshit to restrict gun sales. That fits the profile, that liberals want your guns and will do whatever it takes to get them. One step at a time.
Really shouldn't be encouraging that way of thinking, unless that's actually where you stand in which case.... well, OK. At least own it.
I can walk right down to Academy and purchase one of hundreds of different kinds of firearms.
If this restriction takes place, which of those firearms would I not be able to purchase?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yeahhhhh considering how many people on these boards get 40 awesomed for comparing Trump to Hitler I find the outrage here laughable.
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
It's less outrage and more "how can we have a valid, real-world discussion with people who believe this?" in seriousness.
Which is why I pointed out people in our own boards do it and are celebrated for doing so. Can you have valid, real-world conversations with most people on these forums? If yes, than you need to rethink your stance.
The long and short of it is that X=Hitler is really obvious shorthand. That's why everyone does it. It means exactly how much you read into it, which in your cars here is A Lot with a sprinkling of What's Good Faith? on top.
No one ever accused angry protestors having the cleanest, most sensitive slogans. The point is shock and short, easy images and comparisons and even some rhymes for a catchy slogan. As I said above, you saw some X=Hitler and read waaaaaaaaay more into it than was ideal.
Posting something offhand on a forum is not the same thing as going through the trouble of making a sign, driving out to the protest, and standing out there for hours.
Yeahhhhh considering how many people on these boards get 40 awesomed for comparing Trump to Hitler I find the outrage here laughable.
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
I don't think Godwin shitting a thread ever gets awesomes unless it's sarcasm.
Pretty much anything Negative + Trump gets awesomed. Yes, Hitler references included.
Going to have to cite that.
Edit: Also, they amount of eye roll I give any comparison to Hitler is about the same. I also spent a good deal of my life in the San Francisco Bay Area and while it's an easy target for 'durn libruls!' It's not a reasonable attack on liberalism as an ethos or general policy. That it's somehow an insult has more to do with Fox News branding than understanding of what liberalism is.
When it comes to guns, I've met a far greater number of liberals who think guns have a place in modern society than I have conservatives who are willing to discuss ways to prevent crime beyond "more guns!"
Not super conductive to a conversation here, among this specific group of people on these forums.
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
But they openly show contempt towards other people for things that are verifiably false and part of the package of goods you get when you become an NRA member.
Obama's been "fittin to take our guns" for 7.5 years. It hasn't happened.
But they have a belief system based on the fact that it is.
It's difficult not have contempt towards people who seek to maintain their ownership of deadly weapons when their reasons are based entirely on fantasy.
Then it's pretty clear that very few people are interested in persuading and prefer to sit back and mock, which solidifies positions, rather than changing them. Isn't that the point of debate?
When you mention things that are verifiably false, I assume you're talking about, for example, the studies that Abbalah linked earlier in the thread? I and many others think that there are problems with how those studies are designed and find the conclusions suspect. That's not unreasonable, to point out apparent flaws or bias in the makeup of a study. I also think that the conclusions many posters here draw from those studies are overbroad in their desired application. It's a big reason why a lot of posters here wish the CDC could do studies
Obama and Hillary are on record stating they like or are interested in implementing Australian style gun control, which was a mandatory buy back, followed by confiscation and then if I remember correctly an extremely strict licensing structure. Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, is on record saying she'd love to take all the guns away. These are very direct statements about the persons desire to "take our guns".
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
But they openly show contempt towards other people for things that are verifiably false and part of the package of goods you get when you become an NRA member.
Obama's been "fittin to take our guns" for 7.5 years. It hasn't happened.
But they have a belief system based on the fact that it is.
It's difficult not have contempt towards people who seek to maintain their ownership of deadly weapons when their reasons are based entirely on fantasy.
Then it's pretty clear that very few people are interested in persuading and prefer to sit back and mock, which solidifies positions, rather than changing them. Isn't that the point of debate?
There's no debate to be had. The pro-gun side is EVERYTHING MUST STAY. And the most telling thing here is that even though most people would support more stringent background checks, they vote for people who do not and continue to vote for them. That tells me that while people would accept stricter background checks, most people on the pro-gun side really just don't care.
When you mention things that are verifiably false, I assume you're talking about, for example, the studies that Abbalah linked earlier in the thread? I and many others think that there are problems with how those studies are designed and find the conclusions suspect. That's not unreasonable, to point out apparent flaws or bias in the makeup of a study. I also think that the conclusions many posters here draw from those studies are overbroad in their desired application. It's a big reason why a lot of posters here wish the CDC could do studies
The NRA, gun lobby, and Republicans have blocked the CDC from doing these studies. You wish the CDC could do them, but then you also support the people who prevent them from doing it?
:rotate:
Obama and Hillary are on record stating they like or are interested in implementing Australian style gun control, which was a mandatory buy back, followed by confiscation and then if I remember correctly an extremely strict licensing structure. Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, is on record saying she'd love to take all the guns away. These are very direct statements about the persons desire to "take our guns".
And what legislation have they proposed that would do so?
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
But they openly show contempt towards other people for things that are verifiably false and part of the package of goods you get when you become an NRA member.
Obama's been "fittin to take our guns" for 7.5 years. It hasn't happened.
But they have a belief system based on the fact that it is.
It's difficult not have contempt towards people who seek to maintain their ownership of deadly weapons when their reasons are based entirely on fantasy.
Then it's pretty clear that very few people are interested in persuading and prefer to sit back and mock, which solidifies positions, rather than changing them. Isn't that the point of debate?
When you mention things that are verifiably false, I assume you're talking about, for example, the studies that Abbalah linked earlier in the thread? I and many others think that there are problems with how those studies are designed and find the conclusions suspect. That's not unreasonable, to point out apparent flaws or bias in the makeup of a study. I also think that the conclusions many posters here draw from those studies are overbroad in their desired application. It's a big reason why a lot of posters here wish the CDC could do studies
Obama and Hillary are on record stating they like or are interested in implementing Australian style gun control, which was a mandatory buy back, followed by confiscation and then if I remember correctly an extremely strict licensing structure. Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, is on record saying she'd love to take all the guns away. These are very direct statements about the persons desire to "take our guns".
In casual conversation I always here about how nefarious Democrats are on record saying they want to take all the guns away. Ultimately the only citation anyone can ever give for this stuff is quotes off Fox News from a talking head who makes up a quote or in an NRA newsletter than then quotes the made up talking head that made up a quote.
It is not Hilary's if she wins or Obama's role to propose such legislature. All they could do is change ATF policy really. The point is they are on record as supporting it. Feinstein has put forth the AWB in the past and it also keeps getting brought to the table.
It is not Hilary's if she wins or Obama's role to propose such legislature. All they could do is change ATF policy really. The point is they are on record as supporting it. Feinstein has put forth the AWB in the past and it also keeps getting brought to the table.
On record where?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It is not Hilary's if she wins or Obama's role to propose such legislature. All they could do is change ATF policy really. The point is they are on record as supporting it. Feinstein has put forth the AWB in the past and it also keeps getting brought to the table.
I remember seeing it because there was hoopla surrounding it. And then they back tracked later I think... Ok found it took awhile as everything is hard to search as you all would well know:
Hilary mentioned it in a Townhall in NH last Oct but I would wager was promptly told never do that again. And Obama stated it after the mass shooting in Oregon. As "something that we know works". So yeah I guess 'technically' not 'support'.
I remember seeing it because there was hoopla surrounding it. And then they back tracked later I think... Ok found it took awhile as everything is hard to search as you all would well know:
Hilary mentioned it in a Townhall in NH last Oct but I would wager was promptly told never do that again. And Obama stated it after the mass shooting in Oregon. As "something that we know works". So yeah I guess 'technically' not 'support'.
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
is anyone coming for anyone's gun?
or are some gun sales not allowed?
It's a little more than that.
It's banning an entire class of commonly held arms of a type that have existed for over 100 years (not the specific model AR15, this reinterpretation bans all semi automatic rifles including Pappy's M1 Guuuuurand).
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
is anyone coming for anyone's gun?
or are some gun sales not allowed?
Yeah, they're pulling some pretty obvious bullshit to restrict gun sales. That fits the profile, that liberals want your guns and will do whatever it takes to get them. One step at a time.
Really shouldn't be encouraging that way of thinking, unless that's actually where you stand in which case.... well, OK. At least own it.
I can walk right down to Academy and purchase one of hundreds of different kinds of firearms.
If this restriction takes place, which of those firearms would I not be able to purchase?
According to what's been put out as the reinterpretation of the legislation, anything that is a semi automatic long gun.
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
But they openly show contempt towards other people for things that are verifiably false and part of the package of goods you get when you become an NRA member.
Obama's been "fittin to take our guns" for 7.5 years. It hasn't happened.
But they have a belief system based on the fact that it is.
It's difficult not have contempt towards people who seek to maintain their ownership of deadly weapons when their reasons are based entirely on fantasy.
Then it's pretty clear that very few people are interested in persuading and prefer to sit back and mock, which solidifies positions, rather than changing them. Isn't that the point of debate?
There's no debate to be had. The pro-gun side is EVERYTHING MUST STAY. And the most telling thing here is that even though most people would support more stringent background checks, they vote for people who do not and continue to vote for them. That tells me that while people would accept stricter background checks, most people on the pro-gun side really just don't care.
When you mention things that are verifiably false, I assume you're talking about, for example, the studies that Abbalah linked earlier in the thread? I and many others think that there are problems with how those studies are designed and find the conclusions suspect. That's not unreasonable, to point out apparent flaws or bias in the makeup of a study. I also think that the conclusions many posters here draw from those studies are overbroad in their desired application. It's a big reason why a lot of posters here wish the CDC could do studies
The NRA, gun lobby, and Republicans have blocked the CDC from doing these studies. You wish the CDC could do them, but then you also support the people who prevent them from doing it?
:rotate:
Obama and Hillary are on record stating they like or are interested in implementing Australian style gun control, which was a mandatory buy back, followed by confiscation and then if I remember correctly an extremely strict licensing structure. Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, is on record saying she'd love to take all the guns away. These are very direct statements about the persons desire to "take our guns".
And what legislation have they proposed that would do so?
The original restriction on funding for the CDC to conduct studies happened because the director of the CDC at the time (1980's) openly advocated a political agenda with regards to conducting future studies.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
But they openly show contempt towards other people for things that are verifiably false and part of the package of goods you get when you become an NRA member.
Obama's been "fittin to take our guns" for 7.5 years. It hasn't happened.
But they have a belief system based on the fact that it is.
It's difficult not have contempt towards people who seek to maintain their ownership of deadly weapons when their reasons are based entirely on fantasy.
Then it's pretty clear that very few people are interested in persuading and prefer to sit back and mock, which solidifies positions, rather than changing them. Isn't that the point of debate?
There's no debate to be had. The pro-gun side is EVERYTHING MUST STAY. And the most telling thing here is that even though most people would support more stringent background checks, they vote for people who do not and continue to vote for them. That tells me that while people would accept stricter background checks, most people on the pro-gun side really just don't care.
When you mention things that are verifiably false, I assume you're talking about, for example, the studies that Abbalah linked earlier in the thread? I and many others think that there are problems with how those studies are designed and find the conclusions suspect. That's not unreasonable, to point out apparent flaws or bias in the makeup of a study. I also think that the conclusions many posters here draw from those studies are overbroad in their desired application. It's a big reason why a lot of posters here wish the CDC could do studies
The NRA, gun lobby, and Republicans have blocked the CDC from doing these studies. You wish the CDC could do them, but then you also support the people who prevent them from doing it?
:rotate:
Obama and Hillary are on record stating they like or are interested in implementing Australian style gun control, which was a mandatory buy back, followed by confiscation and then if I remember correctly an extremely strict licensing structure. Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, is on record saying she'd love to take all the guns away. These are very direct statements about the persons desire to "take our guns".
And what legislation have they proposed that would do so?
The original restriction on funding for the CDC to conduct studies happened because the director of the CDC at the time (1980's) openly advocated a political agenda with regards to conducting future studies.
Yes, the NRA did say they did.
The simple fact is that the NRA doesn't want the CDC to do it, because the results will not be what they want. I.E, the study in 1993 that people still cite.
In 1996, Congress stripped away their funding with the Dickey Amendment. They continue to keep the money away and threaten to remove other funding if they dare cross the gun lobby and do a study.
Now, what does the 1980's director have to do with any of that?
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
is anyone coming for anyone's gun?
or are some gun sales not allowed?
It's a little more than that.
It's banning an entire class of commonly held arms of a type that have existed for over 100 years (not the specific model AR15, this reinterpretation bans all semi automatic rifles including Pappy's M1 Guuuuurand).
Yeah, but there's still not a lot to indicate anyone is going to be coming to people's homes or businesses and taking their gun.
It certainly does seem like executive overreach. I would hope this gets overturned by the MA Supreme Court just about as soon as someone has standing. Any idea to what degree Federal Courts would be able to speak to this? It doesn't seem wildly more restrictive than what CA has done, and I don't believe interpretations of the MA Constitution(or whatever they call it) is within the perview of the federal courts.
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
But they openly show contempt towards other people for things that are verifiably false and part of the package of goods you get when you become an NRA member.
Obama's been "fittin to take our guns" for 7.5 years. It hasn't happened.
But they have a belief system based on the fact that it is.
It's difficult not have contempt towards people who seek to maintain their ownership of deadly weapons when their reasons are based entirely on fantasy.
Then it's pretty clear that very few people are interested in persuading and prefer to sit back and mock, which solidifies positions, rather than changing them. Isn't that the point of debate?
There's no debate to be had. The pro-gun side is EVERYTHING MUST STAY. And the most telling thing here is that even though most people would support more stringent background checks, they vote for people who do not and continue to vote for them. That tells me that while people would accept stricter background checks, most people on the pro-gun side really just don't care.
When you mention things that are verifiably false, I assume you're talking about, for example, the studies that Abbalah linked earlier in the thread? I and many others think that there are problems with how those studies are designed and find the conclusions suspect. That's not unreasonable, to point out apparent flaws or bias in the makeup of a study. I also think that the conclusions many posters here draw from those studies are overbroad in their desired application. It's a big reason why a lot of posters here wish the CDC could do studies
The NRA, gun lobby, and Republicans have blocked the CDC from doing these studies. You wish the CDC could do them, but then you also support the people who prevent them from doing it?
:rotate:
Obama and Hillary are on record stating they like or are interested in implementing Australian style gun control, which was a mandatory buy back, followed by confiscation and then if I remember correctly an extremely strict licensing structure. Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, is on record saying she'd love to take all the guns away. These are very direct statements about the persons desire to "take our guns".
And what legislation have they proposed that would do so?
The original restriction on funding for the CDC to conduct studies happened because the director of the CDC at the time (1980's) openly advocated a political agenda with regards to conducting future studies.
Unless that guy is still in charge why is it still in place then? That does seem like a strange restriction over one person, why not try to get him fired if what he's doing was so bad? That said - everyone has agendas, especially in government.
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
But they openly show contempt towards other people for things that are verifiably false and part of the package of goods you get when you become an NRA member.
Obama's been "fittin to take our guns" for 7.5 years. It hasn't happened.
But they have a belief system based on the fact that it is.
It's difficult not have contempt towards people who seek to maintain their ownership of deadly weapons when their reasons are based entirely on fantasy.
Then it's pretty clear that very few people are interested in persuading and prefer to sit back and mock, which solidifies positions, rather than changing them. Isn't that the point of debate?
There's no debate to be had. The pro-gun side is EVERYTHING MUST STAY. And the most telling thing here is that even though most people would support more stringent background checks, they vote for people who do not and continue to vote for them. That tells me that while people would accept stricter background checks, most people on the pro-gun side really just don't care.
When you mention things that are verifiably false, I assume you're talking about, for example, the studies that Abbalah linked earlier in the thread? I and many others think that there are problems with how those studies are designed and find the conclusions suspect. That's not unreasonable, to point out apparent flaws or bias in the makeup of a study. I also think that the conclusions many posters here draw from those studies are overbroad in their desired application. It's a big reason why a lot of posters here wish the CDC could do studies
The NRA, gun lobby, and Republicans have blocked the CDC from doing these studies. You wish the CDC could do them, but then you also support the people who prevent them from doing it?
:rotate:
Obama and Hillary are on record stating they like or are interested in implementing Australian style gun control, which was a mandatory buy back, followed by confiscation and then if I remember correctly an extremely strict licensing structure. Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, is on record saying she'd love to take all the guns away. These are very direct statements about the persons desire to "take our guns".
And what legislation have they proposed that would do so?
The original restriction on funding for the CDC to conduct studies happened because the director of the CDC at the time (1980's) openly advocated a political agenda with regards to conducting future studies.
Yes, the NRA did say they did.
The simple fact is that the NRA doesn't want the CDC to do it, because the results will not be what they want. I.E, the study in 1993 that people still cite.
In 1996, Congress stripped away their funding with the Dickey Amendment. They continue to keep the money away and threaten to remove other funding if they dare cross the gun lobby and do a study.
Now, what does the 1980's director have to do with any of that?
My bad, it was 1990's leadership as well.
That still hasn't prevented the CDC from conducting studies (they published one in 2004-5 after the sunset of the AWB on the effects of the AWB).
Posts
Maybe the protest you go to.
The thing here is that Trump has actually advocated for actual horrible positions that lead to the holocaust and is presenting a fascist policy plank. Calling him Hitler has merit because, well, he's pretty god damn comparable.
HOWEVER.
Not one single person, I don't care of what political persuasion, that has ever held up a "Politician=Hitler" sign is reasonable. They are geese. The fact you are defending these geese because they're your geese and not disgusted they've taken the political discourse down to kindergarten level is pretty revolting.
Well, it wouldn't be an index fund because it's not tracking an index (Dow, Nasdaq, S&P etc.) :biggrin:
However, there may be a mutual fund that fits the bill you're looking for. There is VICEX , but that covers alcohol, tobacco, the defense industry, and gambling as well
Ah, but the dow/nasdaq/etc are, aside from the actual exchange, just lists of companies that fit a certain criteria! You could create an index of all arms manufactures on the NYSE for example
I also think it's adorable that you compare Trump to Hitler and then agree with Heffling's post that Maybe you should think about that.
Literally nothing youre saying here is what you said before.
Im not sure what the deal is but its pretty apparent the guy saying "fuuuuuuuuck yooooou" isnt the one trying to up the level of discourse.
"Not a defense", but yet you see people in the Bay Area who have the Hitler signs and that's a problem.
I have anecdotal evidence of people here in the Bible Belt putting up signs that say "2nd Amendment the Liberals", but I don't consider it a fair representation of the entire US.
However, you explode and stamp your feet like the above post and you wonder why so many of us here feel that people in your mindset are unreasonable?
I said, and let me quote my post from before Does that sound or read to you like I approve? Because I don't. It means I don't care. But you didn't bother to clarify, did you? You're perfectly fine classifying me in your mind as someone that sees a Hillary = Hitler sign and thinks "Yes, good point, well made!" Anyway, I clarified in my followup post.
Does that read or sound to you that I want the discussion to devolve to the level of people that carry Pol = Hitler signs? Or maybe that means I would like us to maintain the level of discourse that ignores the obvious geese?
You implied without asking for clarification that I attend protests where people carry Hitler signs, of which you think I approve. You then claim I'm defending them, and that they're "my geese" and make assumptions at my level of disgust. At which point you claim this "fact" is revolting. Have I about summed it up? What reaction would you expect?
Let's try this out. Talk to the people in this thread, with regards to what they're actually typing. If you would like clarification, ask for it. If it seems like someone is taking a position you find unbelievable/unreasonable/offensive, repeat what you believe their position to be and see if you've got it right. And don't characterize their posts with emotional connotations. Had you made that statement to my face, I would have been laughing while telling you you're a goose cause what you said was ridiculous.
Let's not scour the bowels of the internet and protest images and then declare the opposing side revolting cause of memes. Cause the people carrying those signs and making those memes aren't here. Sound good?
I don't think you approve of them, but I do see you immediately noting how the "bay area liberals" are when they have them, and it's a considerably different tone than you use towards those protesters up there.
Is that clear?
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
is anyone coming for anyone's gun?
or are some gun sales not allowed?
I don't think Godwin shitting a thread ever gets awesomes unless it's sarcasm.
Yeah, they're pulling some pretty obvious bullshit to restrict gun sales. That fits the profile, that liberals want your guns and will do whatever it takes to get them. One step at a time.
Really shouldn't be encouraging that way of thinking, unless that's actually where you stand in which case.... well, OK. At least own it.
Tone is incredibly difficult to impart through text, and I may not have made myself as clear as I could have. I have become numb to those signs, because there are a considerable amount of them here during large protests. It is simply a function of location the politics of the people carrying them. I don't care who is carrying it or what their political beliefs are, I think they're geese.
My original intent when mentioning the bay area and left/liberals is that if Joshofalltrades and dispatch.o want to set the bar for over-the-top irrational hatred, pointing to the few morons that carry signs to protests among otherwise reasonable people is not a good bar to set. There were thousands of people at those protests. I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate being grouped in and dismissed along with those people and I don't do so. I would appreciate the same courtesy.
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
It's less outrage and more "how can we have a valid, real-world discussion with people who believe this?" in seriousness.
Pretty much anything Negative + Trump gets awesomed. Yes, Hitler references included.
But they openly show contempt towards other people for things that are verifiably false and part of the package of goods you get when you become an NRA member.
Obama's been "fittin to take our guns" for 7.5 years. It hasn't happened.
But they have a belief system based on the fact that it is.
It's difficult not have contempt towards people who seek to maintain their ownership of deadly weapons when their reasons are based entirely on fantasy.
Which is why I pointed out people in our own boards do it and are celebrated for doing so. Can you have valid, real-world conversations with most people on these forums? If yes, than you need to rethink your stance.
The long and short of it is that X=Hitler is really obvious shorthand. That's why everyone does it. It means exactly how much you read into it, which in your cars here is A Lot with a sprinkling of What's Good Faith? on top.
No one ever accused angry protestors having the cleanest, most sensitive slogans. The point is shock and short, easy images and comparisons and even some rhymes for a catchy slogan. As I said above, you saw some X=Hitler and read waaaaaaaaay more into it than was ideal.
I can walk right down to Academy and purchase one of hundreds of different kinds of firearms.
If this restriction takes place, which of those firearms would I not be able to purchase?
Posting something offhand on a forum is not the same thing as going through the trouble of making a sign, driving out to the protest, and standing out there for hours.
The two are not comparable.
Going to have to cite that.
Edit: Also, they amount of eye roll I give any comparison to Hitler is about the same. I also spent a good deal of my life in the San Francisco Bay Area and while it's an easy target for 'durn libruls!' It's not a reasonable attack on liberalism as an ethos or general policy. That it's somehow an insult has more to do with Fox News branding than understanding of what liberalism is.
When it comes to guns, I've met a far greater number of liberals who think guns have a place in modern society than I have conservatives who are willing to discuss ways to prevent crime beyond "more guns!"
Not super conductive to a conversation here, among this specific group of people on these forums.
Then it's pretty clear that very few people are interested in persuading and prefer to sit back and mock, which solidifies positions, rather than changing them. Isn't that the point of debate?
When you mention things that are verifiably false, I assume you're talking about, for example, the studies that Abbalah linked earlier in the thread? I and many others think that there are problems with how those studies are designed and find the conclusions suspect. That's not unreasonable, to point out apparent flaws or bias in the makeup of a study. I also think that the conclusions many posters here draw from those studies are overbroad in their desired application. It's a big reason why a lot of posters here wish the CDC could do studies
Obama and Hillary are on record stating they like or are interested in implementing Australian style gun control, which was a mandatory buy back, followed by confiscation and then if I remember correctly an extremely strict licensing structure. Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, is on record saying she'd love to take all the guns away. These are very direct statements about the persons desire to "take our guns".
There's no debate to be had. The pro-gun side is EVERYTHING MUST STAY. And the most telling thing here is that even though most people would support more stringent background checks, they vote for people who do not and continue to vote for them. That tells me that while people would accept stricter background checks, most people on the pro-gun side really just don't care.
The NRA, gun lobby, and Republicans have blocked the CDC from doing these studies. You wish the CDC could do them, but then you also support the people who prevent them from doing it?
:rotate:
And what legislation have they proposed that would do so?
In casual conversation I always here about how nefarious Democrats are on record saying they want to take all the guns away. Ultimately the only citation anyone can ever give for this stuff is quotes off Fox News from a talking head who makes up a quote or in an NRA newsletter than then quotes the made up talking head that made up a quote.
On record where?
Well, that's one Democrat.
Also, an AWB is not Australian gun control.
Hilary mentioned it in a Townhall in NH last Oct but I would wager was promptly told never do that again. And Obama stated it after the mass shooting in Oregon. As "something that we know works". So yeah I guess 'technically' not 'support'.
Do you have a link or anything?
It is. Liberals aren't all about banning guns, it's called gun control - not gun prohibition.
It's a little more than that.
It's banning an entire class of commonly held arms of a type that have existed for over 100 years (not the specific model AR15, this reinterpretation bans all semi automatic rifles including Pappy's M1 Guuuuurand).
According to what's been put out as the reinterpretation of the legislation, anything that is a semi automatic long gun.
The original restriction on funding for the CDC to conduct studies happened because the director of the CDC at the time (1980's) openly advocated a political agenda with regards to conducting future studies.
Yes, the NRA did say they did.
The simple fact is that the NRA doesn't want the CDC to do it, because the results will not be what they want. I.E, the study in 1993 that people still cite.
In 1996, Congress stripped away their funding with the Dickey Amendment. They continue to keep the money away and threaten to remove other funding if they dare cross the gun lobby and do a study.
Now, what does the 1980's director have to do with any of that?
Yeah, but there's still not a lot to indicate anyone is going to be coming to people's homes or businesses and taking their gun.
It certainly does seem like executive overreach. I would hope this gets overturned by the MA Supreme Court just about as soon as someone has standing. Any idea to what degree Federal Courts would be able to speak to this? It doesn't seem wildly more restrictive than what CA has done, and I don't believe interpretations of the MA Constitution(or whatever they call it) is within the perview of the federal courts.
Unless that guy is still in charge why is it still in place then? That does seem like a strange restriction over one person, why not try to get him fired if what he's doing was so bad? That said - everyone has agendas, especially in government.
My bad, it was 1990's leadership as well.
That still hasn't prevented the CDC from conducting studies (they published one in 2004-5 after the sunset of the AWB on the effects of the AWB).