Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers



Politics and General Debates Thread

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,022
Points
113
paul, Do you think that it's fair that you can't have a sleeping pill at night because some people abuse them ?

Do you think I should give up my car because some people intentionally kill with a car ?

Should a person with a lifetime of responsible gun ownership have to give up their target rifle because someone else did something awful with a similar gun ?

Should everyone have to eat with plastic knives because some crazy people have killed with a knife ?

You are talking about punishing everyone for the acts of a very few, a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people who commit a mass shooting but you really think 100 million gun owners should be punished because of the acts of a handful of crazy people?

It's not right and my point is that there is no end to trying to fix a problem this way, just like in Australia it went way too far and always will, my point was even a 100+ year old shotgun design will be too dangerous by this standard and so will your laser pointers, just like it has happened in Australia, this is a question of freedom and NO everyone should not be able to own a rocket launcher, but guns have been in common use for a very long time in America so it's the mental health problems that are causing some people to lash out that need to be addressed, not the implements that they lash out with, that may be too difficult for you to understand if you only parrot/echo your partys talking points, but the fact is this kind of blanket policy is just like saying all black people are thieves just because one black person stole something from you, it's racism against gun owners.

Address the nations mental health problems, don't punish innocent people, it really is that simple.
 



Shakenawake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
1,764
Points
83
While I dont disagree with you red, I have to ask, why are you ok with fully automatics being illegal or highly restricted but not high capacity magazines? How about silencers? Those are illegal or highly restricted yet are used in so few crimes it's not even funny. if I had to pick between banning or highly restricting either high capacity magazines or suppressors, I would restrict the magazines, although I'm not sure I really support restricting either. If there is a line somewhere, where is it and why?

AFAIK, even troops in battle dont carry 100 round mags for their rifles. So there is that.

You shouldn't be too hard on people who conflate magazines and clips. It's hardly the dumbest or most ignorant mistake about guns I have heard. To me the more groan inducing one is conflating semi and fully automatic.

For the record I think bump stocks are stupid, although a binary trigger could be cool
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,022
Points
113
While I dont disagree with you red, I have to ask, why are you ok with fully automatics being illegal or highly restricted but not high capacity magazines? How about silencers? Those are illegal or highly restricted yet are used in so few crimes it's not even funny. if I had to pick between banning or highly restricting either high capacity magazines or suppressors, I would restrict the magazines, although I'm not sure I really support restricting either. If there is a line somewhere, where is it and why?

AFAIK, even troops in battle dont carry 100 round mags for their rifles. So there is that.

You shouldn't be too hard on people who conflate magazines and clips. It's hardly the dumbest or most ignorant mistake about guns I have heard. To me the more groan inducing one is conflating semi and fully automatic.

For the record I think bump stocks are stupid, although a binary trigger could be cool
Troops go into battle with the m-249 which will accept a box mag but is usually fed via. link belt which can be carried on the weapon in "nut-sack " holding 100 and 200 round belts or from a pack/back pack many 100's of rounds long, the m-16 uses magazines, STANAG for NATO that range from 10 to 150 rounds, soldiers on the move often carry 30 round magazines to be maneuverable but suppressive fire is done using multi 100 round belts.

I am against restricting small arms including full auto from citizens.

Silencers are legal as long as you obey NFA and GCA rules in 42 States at present.

Politicians fostering fear to manipulate voters when they have nothing positive to offer is sad but no surprise, at least Obama offered hope as does Trump.
 
Last edited:

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
15,689
Points
113
As I showed in an earlier post, the Odessa, Texas mass shooter bought his semiautomatic assault rifle in a private sale after being denied one after a background check. Everything is a slippery slope for some people. A great example is the NRA. It is likely that if background check loopholes had been closed that the Odessa mass shooting would not have happened. Maybe he would have stolen a gun at a later date and shot someone else. Hypothetical's are always like this because one can never know. You can say that making small changes to what people can own will do no good, but you can't know that either.

Obama dd offer hope. But, Trump offers division. Few have tried to make the point that he offers hope because of the deep divisions he has sown between groups in his many tweets and rallies.


Trump has called an emergency at the border because he wasn't able to get the money he has been asking for his new border wall. It has just been released where the funds, $3.6 billion, will be taken from in projects needing these funds desperately. A school that would have been built for military personnel's children near the Kentucky/Tennessee border will not be built giving $62 million, a Virginia military installation building that is desperately needing an overhaul because it is a terrible fire hazard will not be funded either. They had been getting by with have teams of fire marshals watching it 24/7 on all floors to protect the hundreds of personnel from being trapped because of inadequate exists and no sprinkler system, but that won't be getting its funding either. The list goes on and on just so Trump can give his base something to chant at his rallies. It is an end runaround the constitution that gives the power of the purse to congress. To date, not one foot of new wall has been built, so a frustrated Trump is trying to steal the money from hundreds of projects just to get what even a republican controlled congress would not give him.
 
Last edited:

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,022
Points
113
I could tolerate a new background check law that closes the private sell loophole as long as it's clear and concise without any loose wording that can lead to conjecture, for instance we could pass a law that says citizens must transfer guns through a licensed dealer or call in the State issued ID name/number of the buyer and record the clearance number on a bill of sale and hold anyone criminally liable who doesn't, but I don't want to see this new UBC ( universal background check ) law turn into registration because criminals will not register illegal/stolen/counterfeit/non-serialized guns and many good citizens will not register out of fear of future attempted confiscation/forced buybacks so a registration law would drive much underground..........how you might ask, well any gun purchased from a dealer has a form 4473 showing the buyer which is not registration, it's only kept in paper form by law as a last known owner in case it's found at a crime scene so they know where the trail starts which works for tracking a crime gun through police investigation but is not useful as a national registry, but any gun purchased privately before the new UBC law has no 4473 attached to the new owner the way a dealer purchased gun does, neither do self made non serialized guns which are becoming popular and would not get registered either and would have to be traded under the table from then on as would a slew of new counterfeit and non-serialized guns and this would undoubtedly make the problem worse and make overnight criminals out of many good people who feel they must engage in civil disobedience to defend their rights.

You see the 300 million guns already in citizens hands are legal to sell/trade without doing a background check right now so if a UBC is passed tomorrow and next week a gun is found at a crime scene that was originally purchased 10 years ago, then it could have changed hands many times without a 4473 unless it was sold to a dealer at some point along the chain of ownership and some people " criminals " might sell without obeying the new UBC and say they sold the gun before passage of the UBC and this will bring about a cry for registration which will cause problems so any UBC law will need to also specify what won't be done such as any registration scheme and the new UBC law would still be effective because most law abiding citizens would not sell a gun without obeying the new UBC law which would prevent most of the loophole problem, as for criminals who deal in stolen or other guns disobeying the UBC, well that would happen anyway with or without registration so there is no need to turn a UBC into registration and the law needs to specify that clearly.

Now you might ask, but why not register........well why not put a camera in our cars to make sure we obey the traffic laws, why not put cameras in our homes to protect children ?
I will not break a UBC law when it's passed because I don't intend to risk my freedom and my rights just to sell something skipping a step and the vast majority of gun owners will also obey the law, as long as it's not some unconstitutional attack on our rights then gun owners typically obey, even stupid things like not putting a forward grip on a pistol because technically that makes a pistol into a two handed weapon and is actually a felony.....yes it's really stupid but everyone obeys because it's the law.

So although fixing the gun show loophole sounds simple it's actually not and lawmakers always want to add extra stuff and word things in a tricky way so as to allow the law to be interpreted to mean more than intended in the future, also by requiring every gun sale to go through a licensed dealer we will be in fact creating a registry for all guns sold from this day forward unless people can also call in the background check themselves and record a clearance number on a bill of sale which allows people to at least feel a bit more free and prevents a de facto registry from being so easily misused.......... so what would keep someone from selling a gun and if there was a problem later saying it was lost or stolen ? So now the law will want to include a requirement for people to report any lost or stolen gun within 2 business days or 72 hours and if doing that what about the 300 million existing guns.........well what's to keep someone from saying a gun was lost or stolen later is the law itself and it's stiff penalties for violating which will be effective, but again it must list what it can't do and what other new laws won't be derived from it, otherwise it's the real and valid fear of the slippery slope, when dealing with lawmakers there is always a slippery slope.

A new UBC could drive criminals who currently deal in purchased from unsuspecting citizens guns into illegal dealing self made guns which could put pressure on our right to build our own so the new UBC needs to clearly say that guns legally self made by non prohibited citizens will not be infringed.

But is it really so bad to register....we register cars......yes but you don't have a constitutional right to own a car and once you MUST register then lawmakers can easily prescribe the manner in which registration MUST take place and put requirements on that registration which you MUST do.......Slippery Slope

Then if you own a " this or that " you must do something more to register it, and then all of a sudden another revision that everyone must re-register every year and pay taxes and fees that will get bigger and bigger.........Slippery Slope

A UBC can be done but it has to specify what else will not be derived from it and what the law is not as well as exactly what it is or else it's creating a slippery slope and that's why it's not simple, why lawmakers can't agree, also it's seen by many as an infringement upon our rights to say you can't give your son or daughter, who you know very well a gun to go hunting or target shooting with you without basically asking permission or even hand your pistol to a friend in the next lane at the shooting range or loan them a gun when going hunting or that you can't loan your sister a gun when her estranged husband is threatening to kill her without basically waiting to ask permission, so other considerations will need to be made and included in the UBC law, reasonable considerations because the idea is not to control every action iron clad but to reasonably reduce the chances that a prohibited/unstable person can easily get ahold of a gun, unfortunately some lawmakers only want to get the camels nose into the tent, get the ball rolling upon a slippery slope in order to do more than what's reasonable.
 
Last edited:

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
15,689
Points
113
I'm sure any universal background law will be challenged by the NRA. If it passes muster of the courts it will be law and that, as they say, will be that. You seem to have many ways of transferring a weapon, at least temporarily if not permanently, that would skirt the letter of a UBC law. If the idea is to close loopholes, I doubt these would be okay....even if you feel they are part of your right to own a gun. There is one thing about guns that makes them very deadly and that is the ease with which one can use them to kill anyone. It is the reason they are used so often to kill with. You can claim that a knife will kill, but not nearly as easily as a gun will. And suicides are easier with a gun because you need only point and pull the trigger. It is more difficult to cut your wrists or jump from a building or even run your car off a cliff.

Did anyone see Trump on television claim that hurricane Dorian was going to hit Alabama? He even had a chart, which was issued by NOAA that had the most likely path hitting Florida, but someone had taken a sharpie pen and added a course to Alabama. This would have been just more Trump stupid crap if it weren't for the administration's efforts to keep people from NOAA and the NWS from contradicting Trump after one did in Alabama because the path was never predicted to hit Alabama and people were worried and concerned there after hearing this. So, it would seem that saving face for Trump is far more important than getting that facts correct for people on the ground.
 

Shakenawake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
1,764
Points
83
I'm sure any universal background law will be challenged by the NRA. If it passes muster of the courts it will be law and that, as they say, will be that. You seem to have many ways of transferring a weapon, at least temporarily if not permanently, that would skirt the letter of a UBC law. If the idea is to close loopholes, I doubt these would be okay....even if you feel they are part of your right to own a gun. There is one thing about guns that makes them very deadly and that is the ease with which one can use them to kill anyone. It is the reason they are used so often to kill with. You can claim that a knife will kill, but not nearly as easily as a gun will. And suicides are easier with a gun because you need only point and pull the trigger. It is more difficult to cut your wrists or jump from a building or even run your car off a cliff.

Did anyone see Trump on television claim that hurricane Dorian was going to hit Alabama? He even had a chart, which was issued by NOAA that had the most likely path hitting Florida, but someone had taken a sharpie pen and added a course to Alabama. This would have been just more Trump stupid crap if it weren't for the administration's efforts to keep people from NOAA and the NWS from contradicting Trump after one did in Alabama because the path was never predicted to hit Alabama and people were worried and concerned there after hearing this. So, it would seem that saving face for Trump is far more important than getting that facts correct for people on the ground.
I did see that. Trump sure can be petty. I bet he sharpied the extension into Alabama himself. It's hilarious and sad at the same time. Just couldn't say, "oh I misspoke, my bad". There have been like 4 catagory 5 hurricanes during his presidency and every time he says he has never heard of a cat 5. This guy needs a ministry of truth like in 1984, who can go around altering history to make it match what he says. We can start teaching our kids about all the airfields the British had in the revolutionary war.
 

CurtisOliver

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
6,589
Points
113
If Trump wants to believe we had aircraft before the industrial revolution then let him. :D
 

Alaskan

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
11,463
Points
113
Quoting Paul's quote over in the YouTube video's section, moving the response over here to the political hellscape thread:

Right-wing media are distorting a new report in The Wall Street Journal detailing a payment of $400 million from the United States government to the Iranian government to resolve an arms sale dispute dating to 1981. Conservative outlets are suggesting the payment “was definitely ransom” paid for...
www.mediamatters.org
www.mediamatters.org

Again, everything I said is backed up here. The money was always Iran's and was paid out after the agreement.
--------------------------------------

My response: That 400 million is nothing, it's the 1.3 billion Obama agreed to pay them as "interest" on an arms deal which was never completed, while their assets are still frozen and can conceivably be released, in time, but in the many of billions:

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

Iranian frozen assets
in international accounts are calculated to be worth between $100 billion[1][2]and $120 billion.[3][4]Almost $1.973 billion of Iran's assets are frozen in the United States.[5]According to the Congressional Research Service, in addition to the money locked up in foreign bank accounts, Iran's frozen assets include real estateand other property. The estimated value of Iran's real estate in the U.S. and their accumulated rent is $50 million.[1]Besides the assets frozen in the U.S., some parts of Iran's assets are frozen around the world by the United Nations.
You know what the real problem is? Saudi and a bunch of other countries near Iran do not want them to have nukes, that and their chanting death to America as well as wanting to destroy Israel, that is what is causing their problems. Other countries out here, including the one I am living and working in now dislike Israel too.. but Qatar does not have a nuclear program giving them the possibility of easily destroying them, or at the very least, have the ability to threaten to do so and from what I have seen so far, Qatar doesn't make a habit of making such statements over and over again. Would be stupid for someone to nuke Israel though, they would kill a lot more people than Israelis.

What the displeasure with Israel out here amounts to is pretty much summed up in this: "how dare they not be Muslim in this part of the world? Death to the infidels". That's the chant and attitude, but no one would attack Israel, after all, they have nukes. Would Iran? I don't know.
 
Last edited:

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,022
Points
113
The Obama administration told Congress it would not allow Iran access to U.S. financial institutions because Iran is a sponsor of Terrorism against Israel and worldwide, but the Obama admin did issue a special license allowing Iran access to US financial institutions then Obama lied about it and sent US officials including bank regulators around the world to urge foreign financial institutions to do business with Iran and promised that they would get nothing more than a slap on the wrist for violating U.S. sanctions, that's down right criminal, if Trump did this the dems would be impeaching him right now and justly so.


 
Last edited:

Alaskan

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
11,463
Points
113
Convoluted situation the U.S. has, for sure, very stupid how our country is behaving in the political arena.
 

Shakenawake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
1,764
Points
83
The Obama administration told Congress it would not allow Iran access to U.S. financial institutions because Iran is a sponsor of Terrorism against Israel and worldwide, but the Obama admin did issue a special license allowing Iran access to US financial institutions then Obama lied about it and sent US officials including bank regulators around the world to urge foreign financial institutions to do business with Iran and promised that they would get nothing more than a slap on the wrist for violating U.S. sanctions, that's down right criminal, if Trump did this the dems would be impeaching him right now and justly so.


Oh I dont think so. Trump does business with and takes personal money from Saudi Arabia, arguably the BIGGEST sponsor of terror, who are committing a genocide in Yemen that we are assisting with and not many dems seem to be batting an eye.
 

Alaskan

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
11,463
Points
113
Qatar, has been at odds with Saudi Arabia for awhile now due to state sponsored terrorism, after that statement from Qatar, Saudi blocked it's border with them, that cuts off the whole country from road access to anywhere now, everything must come in by air. Saudi has been planning to dig a deep wide trench where this small country attaches to the mainland to turn them into an island. The US should not be friendly with Saudi at all, in my view.

 

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
15,689
Points
113
The Obama administration told Congress it would not allow Iran access to U.S. financial institutions because Iran is a sponsor of Terrorism against Israel and worldwide, but the Obama admin did issue a special license allowing Iran access to US financial institutions then Obama lied about it and sent US officials including bank regulators around the world to urge foreign financial institutions to do business with Iran and promised that they would get nothing more than a slap on the wrist for violating U.S. sanctions, that's down right criminal, if Trump did this the dems would be impeaching him right now and justly so.


This is a dodge to take the heat off Trump. All this happened 5 years ago and no laws were broken by the Obama Administration according to your own report from ABC news. Republicans have tried to make something out of nothing here, but I don't see it taking off for them. Trump is still the reckless crook he has always been and has run off so many qualified people from his administration that there aren't many except for "acting" members of his cabinet and it is becoming more difficult to find people willing to even do this for him. The newest polls are showing his base is narrowing with 60% of of voters not in favor of a Trump presidency and even fewer believing much if not all that comes out of there as truth. Less than 30% believe what Trrump says on a daily basis.
 




Top