Trump - 4 more years of this at least... [Archive] - Page 3

TheDemonLord

2nd October 2020, 22:10

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" (or words to that effect) if you are getting all you need provided, why the need to accumulate possessions/wealth/etc, Are you saying it is a basic human trait to try to get and hold more than needed? Does any other animal do that?

Interesting Questions:

Have you ever heard of an Experiment called Rat-Topia? I'll give the abridged version: Rats were provided with everything that they needed, in a controlled environment, eventually, after several generations, all the Rats died out. The underlying Why is hotly contested, with various a priori social views coloring the issue. The observed result was that Males were no longer interested in competing for Female attention and the Females were no longer interested in procreating and raising litters, so consequently the entire population eventually died.

So to answer your question - If you are getting all that you 'need', why do you need to do XYZ - It's my view that all that we think we need isn't what we actually need. And that there is something else above what is merely needed that is required for life to be worth living.

Or to put it another way: "If we ever achieved Utopia, the first thing we would do is Burn it all down so that something interesting would happen"

Am I saying Selfishness, Jealousy, gluttoness is a basic Human Trait? Absolutely. It's universal in all cultures and it's something we don't teach our children, instead we have to teach them to share and to not be selfish or jealous.

Do any other Animals do that? There are certainly animals that Kill more than they need (Foxes in a Hen-coup, Dolphins/Orcas killing for 'fun', Orcas deliberately maiming an animal, dragging it out to sea so their young can practice hunting on live prey), There's also animals that 'display' wealthy, Lyre Birds where the Male will build an ostentatious nest, full of shiny objects to attract a Females attention.

husaberg

2nd October 2020, 22:42

True, the image should've stated The real quotes were "But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides" and "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" to show they were separate. Still the point remains.
your quote has edited out a fair bit of content.

“You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group … There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people — neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest.”
later on he referred to others
What was alarming was he compared the two groups even though one was clearly not being violent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs

there was from what I have seen no other quiet protesters that is his myth. the other group was a pro white right wing militia.

the rally was called the unit right rally.
The Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist and neo-Nazi rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017.
Supported by the KKK, Duke was a programed speaker.
“Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth,” David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, wrote in a Twitter post shortly after Mr. Trump spoke.
Richard B. Spencer, a white nationalist leader who participated in the weekend’s demonstrations and vowed to flood Charlottesville with similar protests in the coming weeks, was equally encouraged. “Trump’s statement was fair and down to earth,”
On the morning of August 12, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency, stating that public safety could not be safeguarded without additional powers. Within an hour, at 11:22 a.m., the Virginia State Police declared the rally to be an unlawful assembly.
At around 1:45 p.m., self-identified white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. deliberately rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters about 0.5 miles (0.8 km) away from the rally site, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 19 other people.

good people both sides the records don't appear to agree.

you might want to look at the video of the university student getting surrounded and beaten on the University of Virginia campus

Hundreds of far-right demonstrators wielding torches and chanting ‘you will not replace us’ march on the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville on Friday night. The ‘alt-right’ protesters surround a small group of counter-protesters who had linked arms around a statue of Thomas Jefferson
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/aug/12/far-right-crowd-marches-on-university-of-virginia-campus-video

TheDemonLord

2nd October 2020, 23:05

your quote has edited out a fair bit of content.
“You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group … There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people — neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest.”
later on he referred to others
What was alarming was he compared the two groups even though one was clearly not being violent.

here is the video
there was from what I have seen no other quiet protesters that is his myth.
the rally was called the unit right rally.
The Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist and neo-Nazi rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, from August 11 to 12, 2017.
Supported by the KKK
“Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth,” David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, wrote in a Twitter post shortly after Mr. Trump spoke.
Richard B. Spencer, a white nationalist leader who participated in the weekend’s demonstrations and vowed to flood Charlottesville with similar protests in the coming weeks, was equally encouraged. “Trump’s statement was fair and down to earth,”
On the morning of August 12, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency, stating that public safety could not be safeguarded without additional powers. Within an hour, at 11:22 a.m., the Virginia State Police declared the rally to be an unlawful assembly.
At around 1:45 p.m., self-identified white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. deliberately rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters about 0.5 miles (0.8 km) away from the rally site, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 19 other people.

good people both sides the records don't appear to agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs

you might want to look at the video of the university student getting surrounded and beaten on the university of Virginia campus

Hundreds of far-right demonstrators wielding torches and chanting ‘you will not replace us’ march on the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville on Friday night. The ‘alt-right’ protesters surround a small group of counter-protesters who had linked arms around a statue of Thomas Jefferson
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/aug/12/far-right-crowd-marches-on-university-of-virginia-campus-video

Shall we compare this to a list of all the Violence, Murders, Looting, Arson etc. that have been done by ANTIFA and BLM? Going all the way back to 2017?

Bonez

3rd October 2020, 03:12

Doesn't Duke support Biden?

Just saying...

Laava

3rd October 2020, 06:25

Trump is in a bit of bother now. He is in several high risk groups, elderly, obese and low income!

slofox

3rd October 2020, 06:40

Trump is in a bit of bother now. He is in several high risk groups, elderly, obese and low income!

Well, it's a start innit? Maybe there is some justice out there after all. :yes:

onearmedbandit

3rd October 2020, 08:44

your quote has edited out a fair bit of content.

later on he referred to others
What was alarming was he compared the two groups even though one was clearly not being violent.

Thanks, but that's not the issue I was addressing which was Pritch's claim that Trump didn't say words to the effect that 'neo nazis should be condemned'. As I've said before I don't trust any politician, not one of them. I expect them to lie and manipulate facts to suit their agenda. What irritates me however is the partisan media, I don't expect them to lie and manipulate the truth. Trump it seems has been a god-send for the media to do exactly this, and divide opinion and stir up controversy, not in the name of 'reporting' but with the simple goal of getting more clicks and selling more papers. At the time of this particular incident there was some cute editing done to sell two versions of the same story by both sides and whatever network you watched and followed decided what impression you got. I've seen friends fall out of friendship with each other simply over where they decide to get their news from.

So back to the topic, I agree the quote in RDJ's image is not verbatim (that's my fault for not reading it properly) but he did state on the 15th of August (the same day that he said the quote Pritch put up) that they should be condemned.

pritch

3rd October 2020, 09:37

Reuters reports Trump is being moved to a military medical facility. Walter Reed Hospital?

There are many conspiracy theories circulating on social media. My favourite is that Trump feigns illness and Pence steps up to assume the presidency. Bearing in mind that Trump is being taken to hospital that may be imminent. The theory then postulates that Pence will pardon trump.

That Office of Legal Counsel opinion that stipulates a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime may bite Trump on the ass. Because of that opinion, and that's all it is, it isn't a law. Trump has not been charged so there's nothing to pardon.

husaberg

3rd October 2020, 09:38

Thanks, but that's not the issue I was addressing which was Pritch's claim that Trump didn't say words to the effect that 'neo nazis should be condemned'. As I've said before I don't trust any politician, not one of them. I expect them to lie and manipulate facts to suit their agenda. What irritates me however is the partisan media, I don't expect them to lie and manipulate the truth. Trump it seems has been a god-send for the media to do exactly this, and divide opinion and stir up controversy, not in the name of 'reporting' but with the simple goal of getting more clicks and selling more papers. At the time of this particular incident there was some cute editing done to sell two versions of the same story by both sides and whatever network you watched and followed decided what impression you got. I've seen friends fall out of friendship with each other simply over where they decide to get their news from.

So back to the topic, I agree the quote in RDJ's image is not verbatim (that's my fault for not reading it properly) but he did state on the 15th of August (the same day that he said the quote Pritch put up) that they should be condemned.

But when Trump did condemn them it was'nt a condemnation of them though, when not only had they been the violent protesters, one of them had driven a car and killed and injured people.
Trump is undoubtedly constantly trying to create racial division.

onearmedbandit

3rd October 2020, 09:44

Trump is undoubtedly constantly trying to create racial division.

That I don't doubt at all. But the media play it up just as much if not more. That's where the real issuefor me lies, I expect politicians to lie and manipulate. That's their game. But it shouldn't be the medias.

husaberg

3rd October 2020, 09:47

That I don't doubt at all. But the media play it up just as much if not more. That's where the real issue for me lies, I expect politicians to lie and manipulate. That's their game. But it shouldn't be the medias.

The media from day dot has had a bias.
but they are held to account by broadcasting acts they may well spin but they don't outright lie, as if they did they have to retract and pay fines and lose licenses.
we expect spin from politicians even the occasional lie they think they can get away with.
but what we shouldn't expect is multiple bear faced lies day after day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUILpMhSJjs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tplMC4cqNbg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqF30Pk8jiU

onearmedbandit

3rd October 2020, 10:24

The media from day dot has had a bias.
but they are held to account by broadcasting acts they may well spin but they don't outright lie, as if they did they have to retract and pay fines and lose licenses.

Let's replace 'lie' with 'misrepresent' then. And yes while they've always held a bias it now seems they hold an agenda.

husaberg

3rd October 2020, 10:51

Let's replace 'lie' with 'misrepresent' then. And yes while they've always held a bias it now seems they hold an agenda.

No from day dot you have had media that try and manipulate the context and suit what they want to project but there are broadcasting limits, there has always been agendas
let's look at the people that control the media

Trump and others like to claim they are left, but the vast majority of the worlds media are owned by large multimedia companies that have right wing agenda's.
But they are held to account by standards they can't produce the outright lies that Trump gets away with otherwise they would be in court and out of business.
If trump wasn't caught in so many lies he would show how he is telling the truth with facts but instead he just claims fake news and says believe me, its a conspiracy.

The US Freedom of speech laws and press by the media can conflict with a citizen’s right not to be subject to false statements in the media that would defame a person’s character.
That is, the media do not have a general right under the principle of protected free press or speech to commit slander (to speak false information with an intent to harm a person) or libel (the printing of false information with intent to harm a person or entity)
Libel and slander can only occur only in cases where false information is presented as fact.
Now which side is doing the outright lies, is it the media or Trump............

onearmedbandit

3rd October 2020, 11:12

No from day dot you have had media that try and manipulate the context and suit what they want to project but there are broadcasting limits, there has always been agendas
let's look at the people that control the media

I'm not talking about Trump though in this instance, I'm referring to the media. You agree they have a bias, you agree they have an agenda. I'm simply stating that this has become more blatant, and I disagree with that abuse. This is my opinion, I'm not stating it as fact. But from my own experience it is now incredibly common to find the same story 'spun' with completely different perspectives and narratives.

For the record I am well aware that Trump lies through his teeth. Like virtually every politician. But politicians have always ranked low on trust. The media shouldn't.

husaberg

3rd October 2020, 11:26

I'm not talking about Trump though in this instance, I'm referring to the media. You agree they have a bias, you agree they have an agenda. I'm simply stating that this has become more blatant, and I disagree with that abuse. This is my opinion, I'm not stating it as fact. But from my own experience, it is now incredibly common to find the same story 'spun' with completely different perspectives and narratives.

For the record, I am well aware that Trump lies through his teeth. Like virtually every politician. But politicians have always ranked low on trust. The media shouldn't.
i don't agree it has become more blatant they just have a target that that is very blatant and incredibly unsophisicated.
What it has exposed, is the covering up of these shortcomings of the right-wing media.
It shows for all that is wrong with America and its cult of personalities.
Trump lies are far less subtle and far more numerous than any other politician, I have ever seen.

pritch

3rd October 2020, 11:39

Let's replace 'lie' with 'misrepresent' then. And yes while they've always held a bias it now seems they hold an agenda.

Fox are exempt from that, legaly speaking, despite the name they are not a news station. Most on air staff peddle opinions or commentary which are fancy names for lies. There are a few news staff who do report the news to normal standards. The latter tend to upset management from time to time, eg Shepard Smith who has just resurfaced with CNBC after being fired from Fox a year ago at the request of the White House.

The recent Fox court defence of Tucker Carlson was interesting, basically they said everybody knows not to take any notice of Carlson.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fox-news-argues-in-court-that-tucker-carlson-doesnt-have-an-obligation-to-tell-the-truth/ar-BB15FQkR

husaberg

3rd October 2020, 11:57

Fox are exempt from that, legaly speaking, despite the name they are not a news station. Most on air staff peddle opinions or commentary which are fancy names for lies. There are a few news staff who do report the news to normal standards. The latter tend to upset management from time to time, eg Shepard Smith who has just resurfaced with CNBC after being fired from Fox a year ago at the request of the White House.

The recent Fox court defence of Tucker Carlson was interesting, basically they said everybody knows not to take any notice of Carlson.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fox-news-argues-in-court-that-tucker-carlson-doesnt-have-an-obligation-to-tell-the-truth/ar-BB15FQkR

Pretty sure trump even previously exposed how unbiassed the Russian controlled Russian owned propaganda station Russia today is
its seems even they are poking him now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyo7zeLNPJg&feature=emb_logo

onearmedbandit

3rd October 2020, 12:10

i don't agree it has become more blatant they just have a target that that is very blatant and incredibly unsophisicated.

That's the beautiful thing about opinions, they're based a lot on perspectives. And we can all learn from each others perspective. I should add I don't just limit my feelings about this to reporting on Trump, nor only American media outlets, but even news reporting here in New Zealand.

Bonez

3rd October 2020, 12:33

But when Trump did condemn them it wast a condemnation of them though, when not only had they been the violent protesters one of them had driven a car and killed and injured people.
Trump is undoubtedly constantly trying to create racial division.You forgot to mention that driver was approached by an ARMED Antifa member and wanted to get the fuck away from him.

ANTIFA and BLM mermbers were bussed to Charlottesville to stir up trouble.

Just saying...

Kickaha

3rd October 2020, 14:49

You forgot to mention that driver was approached by an ARMED Antifa member and wanted to get the fuck away from him.

ANTIFA and BLM mermbers were bussed to Charlottesville to stir up trouble.

Just saying...

Yeah sure he was, must be why he pled guilty to 29 out of 30 charges

While the White Supremacists were just there just for a peaceful outdoors picnic with all their other white supremacists mates

He backed up, stopped the car and then launched it forward into the crowd

FJRider

3rd October 2020, 15:12

I think you missed my point - "You don't own anything" - that's because the State has taken it all - which is what my original glib remark hinted at.

You had a point ... ?? Who knew .. ??

And '"Hints" often show up well on KB. What you post is usually taken as being ... what you mean.

Whatever way you slice it, such a system is fundamentally incompatible with Human Nature, because there is no Carrot (self-motivation) only Stick ('motivation' as you put it).

Quick question ... Have you ever lived/stayed in a Commune in NZ ... or anywhere .. ??

RDJ

3rd October 2020, 15:29

TheDemonLord

3rd October 2020, 16:23

Quick question ... Have you ever lived/stayed in a Commune in NZ ... or anywhere .. ??

Would it surprise you if I said I had?

I'm fairly certain I've referenced that I have some very far-left friends, musician/artist/hippy types, when I was in my late teens I stayed with some of them, quasi-couch surfing.

And even then, some of their fundamental assertions didn't add up

jim.cox

3rd October 2020, 16:35

The damned...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EjXJmQBXsAA4N0e?format=jpg&name=small

FJRider

3rd October 2020, 17:14

Would it surprise you if I said I had?

I'm fairly certain I've referenced that I have some very far-left friends, musician/artist/hippy types, when I was in my late teens I stayed with some of them, quasi-couch surfing.

And even then, some of their fundamental assertions didn't add up

I stayed on one near Otaki in the mid 70's. I was still in the Army ... but on leave. Few there knew that though. I had friends living there and I had a few skills they needed ...and inclination to work and knowledge of how to do it that a few lacked. And in return for food .. I worked.

I was there two weeks. There was a continual procession of residents to where I was working ... telling me how to do it better. Each telling me how THEY had more authority to decide how things should be done than I did. They got quite pissed off when I told them to piss off. I built an irrigation system for their "Gardens" with the bit's and pieces they had.

I concentrated irrigating plants that you could (eventually) eat ... not SMOKE. That pissed off a few too.

Their evening meetings to discuss the next day/week plans ... as to what needs done (and who will do it) ... had as much merit listening to ... as Play center group infants discussing politics would be. It seemed everybody had the notion that seniority depended on how long you'd been there. But (apparently) ... they were ALL equal. As per "Animal Farm" ... some were just MORE equal than others. And thus deserved more "rights" than others.

Two weeks was what I agreed to ... and there it ended. My job was easy ... being there was the hard work.

husaberg

3rd October 2020, 17:20

‘I think I’m doing very well’: Trump releases video message before airlift to Walter Reed hospital.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Mr Trump will work in a special suite at the hospital for the next few days as a precautionary measure.
White House doctor Sean P. Conley said the president is being treated with an experimental drug cocktail.

I hope is an injection of bleach internal UV light and huge doses of hydroxychloroquine.

pritch

3rd October 2020, 17:58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzcW0zUSKg

onearmedbandit

3rd October 2020, 18:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzcW0zUSKg

Very powerful video, that man is synonymous with leadership and trust. Unlike a certain president.

Katman

3rd October 2020, 18:38

Very powerful video....

....or biased media?

onearmedbandit

3rd October 2020, 18:44

....or biased media?

Opinion ;). But still as far as celebrity pull goes he's punching far above any singer/actor/influencer.

pritch

3rd October 2020, 19:15

....or biased media?

It's a bloody campaign ad, of course it's biased. Trump's would be just as biased except they haven't got any, because the money all vanished - again.

Bonez

3rd October 2020, 19:22

Don't quote facts at pritch, it'll addle him further.

So you have noticed that too hah?

Careful now pritch might put you on ignore but not ignore you if you know what I mean.:crybaby:

Just saying...

Katman

3rd October 2020, 19:25

It's a bloody campaign ad, of course it's biased.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

pritch

3rd October 2020, 19:34

As it stands the order of succession in the US is as follows:
Pence - Vice President
Pelosi - Speaker of the House
Grassley - President pro tempore of the Senate
Pompeo - Cabinet
Mnuchin - Cabinet

Currently Covid is cutting a swathe through the White House and the Senate. Reportedly some people with Covid are at work as if nothing is wrong. (Not for the first time.)

A medical expert on MSNBC said that previous administrations would have had all those people listed in the order of succession in isolation by now. They are all of an age that would suggest they are vulnerable. I've looked but am yet to read that the White House is taking any precautions as yet.

Bonez

3rd October 2020, 19:42

Yeah sure he was, must be why he pled guilty to 29 out of 30 charges

While the White Supremacists were just there just for a peaceful outdoors picnic with all their other white supremacists mates

He backed up, stopped the car and then launched it forward into the crowd
You really aren't any good at doing research are you? https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/armed-antifa-professor-admits-chasing-charlottesville-driver-rifle-deadly-crash/

And https://www.educationviews.org/armed-antifa-prof-admits-chasing-charlottesville-driver-before-deadly-crash/

And..

And...

Just saying...

sugilite

3rd October 2020, 20:02

As it stands the order of succession in the US is as follows:
Pence - Vice President
Pelosi - Speaker of the House

I think President Pelosi has a nice ring to it - write a few executive orders, like wannabe future presidents have to show their full financials and who they owe money too :devil2:

husaberg

3rd October 2020, 20:19

I think President Pelosi has a nice ring to it - write a few executive orders, like wannabe future presidents have to show their full financials and who they owe money too :devil2:

Well it happened on the west wing when the republican leader played by john goodman stood in......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

pete376403

3rd October 2020, 21:05

Yet more of trumps circle are infected https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/02/kellyanne-conway-covid-19-rose-garden-event

Kickaha

3rd October 2020, 21:49

You really aren't any good at doing research are you? https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/armed-antifa-professor-admits-chasing-charlottesville-driver-rifle-deadly-crash/

And https://www.educationviews.org/armed-antifa-prof-admits-chasing-charlottesville-driver-before-deadly-crash/

And..

And...

Just saying...

Neither are you if you consider the Gateway pundit credible :laugh:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/07/charlottesville-driver-convicted-first-degree-murder/38693193/

"he stopped his car, backed up, then sped into the crowd, according to testimony from witnesses and video surveillance shown to jurors"

"Fields avoided the death penalty when he took a plea bargain in pleading guilty in March to federal hate crime charges and admitting that he'd intentionally plowed his vehicle into the crowd of anti-racism protesters"

husaberg

3rd October 2020, 22:07

Neither are you if you consider the Gateway pundit credible :laugh:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/07/charlottesville-driver-convicted-first-degree-murder/38693193/

"he stopped his car, backed up, then sped into the crowd, according to testimony from witnesses and video surveillance shown to jurors"

"Fields avoided the death penalty when he took a plea bargain in pleading guilty in March to federal hate crime charges and admitting that he'd intentionally plowed his vehicle into the crowd of anti-racism protesters"

According to one of his former teachers, Fields was known in high school for being fascinated with Nazism and idolizing Adolf Hitler. Jurors were shown a text message he sent to his mother days before the rally that included an image of the notorious German dictator. When his mother pleaded with him to be careful, he replied: “we’re not the one (sic) who need to be careful.”

Prosecutors also showed jurors a meme Fields posted on Instagram three months before the rally in which bodies are shown being thrown into the air after a car hits a crowd of people identified as protesters. He posted the meme publicly to his Instagram page and sent a similar image as a private message to a friend in May 2017.

Video of the incident shows a Dodge Challenger stopping a short distance from those marching in the area reversing, but then going forward into them.

[QUOTE][olice Chief Al S. Thomas Jr. said he regretted the loss of life after the violence ended in the death of a Charlottesville woman hit by a driver accused of ramming into counterprotesters, and the deaths of two Virginia state troopers killed when the helicopter they were in monitoring the rally crashed.

Thomas said organizers of the Unite the Right rally did not follow what the chief said had been an agreed-upon plan that involved controlling the demonstrators’ access to Emancipation Park through a rear entrance./QUOTE]
.............................

Jews will not replace us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPLvWO_SOgM

Bonez

3rd October 2020, 23:52

Neither are you if you consider the Gateway pundit credible :laugh:
Well over a dozen news outlets covered the Antifa gunmans confessiuon.

Just saying..

Kickaha

4th October 2020, 06:56

Well over a dozen news outlets covered the Antifa gunmans confessiuon.

Just saying..

He was in no way responsible for the action of Fields, but if you want to continue making excuses for a murder carry on

just saying

Bonez

4th October 2020, 07:14

He was in no way responsible for the action of Fields, but if you want to continue making excuses for a murder carry on

just saying

Suuuure. The Anifa gunman, a proffesor no less. gets bussed in to stir shit. Chases a car driver with gun in hand and puts that driver in the mind set of 'I've gotta get the fuck out of here!!" Terrified for his life hits a bunch of Antifa members who were also bussed in to stir shit.

Suuuuree.

Just saying...

sugilite

4th October 2020, 08:10

Wow, Obama care sure is comprehensive huh, look at that line up of Doctors! :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocamWEqahMo

pritch

4th October 2020, 08:40

Wow, Obama care sure is comprehensive huh, look at that line up of Doctors! :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocamWEqahMo

The cretin is gettng great value for the $750 he paid in federal tax.

Bonez

4th October 2020, 09:02

The cretin is gettng great value for the $750 he paid in federal tax.

So he pays taxes pritch.

Apareently you reported he doesn't pay taxes.

Do make will your mind pritch.

You change your mind more the a mother changes her new born babies shitty nappies.

Just saying...

Kickaha

4th October 2020, 09:04

Bonez

4th October 2020, 09:22

How do you know he took the bus

What did Fields plead guilty then ? would that not have been a strong defence ? Have you always been an apologist for racist murderers ?

Just saying

How do you know the ANTIFA gun man didn't take a bus.?

At least three busses arrived wiith ANTIFA and BLM on them. All recorded in glorious Technocolor.

It's fucking obvious why he pled guilty.How do you know the driver was racist and that was the motivation for running into those ANTIFA idiots who were bussed there to shit stir?

Just saying....

Kickaha

4th October 2020, 11:46

How do you know the ANTIFA gun man didn't take a bus.?.

You're they one who said he was bussed in so I assumed you'd have some proof of that

Just saying

At least three busses arrived wiith ANTIFA and BLM on them. All recorded in glorious Technocolor.

Exercising their right to protest, but the biggest act of violence wasn't committed by them was it ?

It's fucking obvious why he pled guilty.
Yeah, because he was guilty as fuck

How do you know the driver was racist and that was the motivation for running into those ANTIFA idiots who were bussed there to shit stir?
Just saying....

So the white nationalist rally goers weren't there to stir shit?

Nah the guy who known as the "Nazi of the school" and who was deep into white supremacy probably accidently hit the gas instead of the brake and it was just a tragic mistake that will all be cleared up soon

But you carry on making excuses for him murdering someone and injuring several others

Kickaha

4th October 2020, 11:57

Suuuure. The Anifa gunman, a proffesor no less. gets bussed in to stir shit. Chases a car driver with gun in hand and puts that driver in the mind set of 'I've gotta get the fuck out of here!!" Terrified for his life hits a bunch of Antifa members who were also bussed in to stir shit.

Suuuuree.

Just saying...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Alex_Fields_Jr.

What's false: if we're willing to trust Dixon's 7 January Facebook post, then we should also trust his 3 February speech. Dixon asserted that [1] Fields circled around the Redneck Revolt area several times, [2] Dixon "waved him off" with his AR15, [3] in Fields' final circle (not the same as the one where he was waved off), Fields accelerated into the crowd. In fact, the area where Dixon was stationed (Justice Park) is 4 blocks (about 0.25 miles) away from the crash site. Fields would've had ample time to brake before reaching the intersection and also had the option of turning at Market St. to avoid the crowd. Moreover, as the street footage shows, Fields increased his acceleration towards the intersection even when he could see that his path was blocked -- and then, after the crash, he backed up straight towards Justice Park (where Dixon was allegedly chasing him). The far-right claims also ignore the facts laid about in court by police detective Steven Young, who was investigating the attack, that Fields' car first arrived near the intersection slowly and idled for a time before backing up and accelerating at the crowd at high speed. This is proven by footage taken via police helicopter and a security camera outside a restaurant near the intersection that was shown before the court."

Bonez

4th October 2020, 12:03

You're they one who said he was bussed in so I assumed you'd have some proof of that

Ibeleive the word you are looking for is the .

I'm glad I could help.

Just saying...

FlangMasterJ

4th October 2020, 12:11

Ibeleive

I believe the word you're looking for is believe.

TheDemonLord

4th October 2020, 12:54

Doesn't Duke support Biden?

Just saying...

I'm not sure on him, however Richard Spencer has endorsed Biden.

Afterall, the modern radical left and the alt-right have a lot in common....

Bonez

4th October 2020, 13:08

I'm not sure on him, however Richard Spencer has endorsed Biden.

Afterall, the modern radical left and the alt-right have a lot in common....

Of course you are correct- Fascist tactics.

Or the pritch interpretation- Unorganised peaceful protesters.

Just saying...

sugilite

4th October 2020, 13:32

I'm not sure on him, however Richard Spencer has endorsed Biden.

Afterall, the modern radical left and the alt-right have a lot in common....

Yes, I've noticed how Biden has picked up a hell of a lot of right leaning endorsements. It is not hard to work out why that is.

pritch

4th October 2020, 14:09

Yes, I've noticed how Biden has picked up a hell of a lot of right leaning endorsements. It is not hard to work out why that is.

I didn't think there was much Spencer and I would agree on, but he said, "The liberals are clearly more competent people."
No argument from me.

https://pjmedia.com/election/tyler-o-neil/2020/08/24/as-team-biden-celebrates-gop-defectors-richard-spencer-endorses-democrats-n832500

pritch

4th October 2020, 15:19

The Texas Attorney General already indicted on an unrelated matter, is now alleged to have abused his office and taken bribes.
Oh, and he is co chair of 'Lawyers For Trump.'

pritch

4th October 2020, 15:26

"Only the best people."

Donald Jr's girl friend reportedly gets $170,000 pa courrtesy of the tax payer. She seems a real honey.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/03/new-details-kimberly-guilfoyles-time-fox-news-are-horrific/

husaberg

4th October 2020, 16:43

The Texas Attorney General already indicted on an unrelated matter, is now alleged to have abused his office and taken bribes.
Oh, and he is co chair of 'Lawyers For Trump.'

I am picking he will join the long list of trumps i don't know hims...........

FJRider

4th October 2020, 17:51

The Texas Attorney General already indicted on an unrelated matter, is now alleged to have abused his office and taken bribes.
Oh, and he is co chair of 'Lawyers For Trump.'

https://www.statesman.com/news/20201003/top-aides-accuse-texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-of-bribery-abusing-office

FJRider

4th October 2020, 17:55

I believe the word you're looking for is believe.

His Spellcheck is broken. It does that often ... :shifty:

Bonez

4th October 2020, 18:51

His Spellcheck is broken. It does that often ... :shifty:

WOW!! What an original response.

Just saying...

pritch

4th October 2020, 20:56

In 2020 Trump is the biggest source of disinformation, the Russians are a long way back.

This'll be tl:dr for the Dunning Kruger set.

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publication/2020/Mail-in-Voter-Fraud-Disinformation-2020

Bonez

4th October 2020, 21:22

In 2020 Trump is the biggest source of disinformation, the Russians are a long way back.

Apparently pritch reported that President Trump was Putin’s puppet.

Just saying...

husaberg

4th October 2020, 23:03

https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/143f9762e3ec4c4aa7d7f9adbfb58281/3000.jpeghttps://images.newrepublic.com/c404f41778833c6a4e4ad57fd766acc11cd5bb0f.jpeg?auto =compress&w=1400&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.1

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 07:34

Yes, I've noticed how Biden has picked up a hell of a lot of right leaning endorsements. It is not hard to work out why that is.

Because they are establishment type Conservatives who don't understand the fundamental principles of individual sovereignty that Conservatism is based on?

You saw the same thing with Brexit in the UK in the Conservative party that nearly ended up destroying it.

I didn't think there was much Spencer and I would agree on, but he said, "The liberals are clearly more competent people."
No argument from me.

https://pjmedia.com/election/tyler-o-neil/2020/08/24/as-team-biden-celebrates-gop-defectors-richard-spencer-endorses-democrats-n832500

Bloody hell Pritch.

Just stop for a moment and think about WHY he said that.

Why would someone who advocates for Racial segragation and an 'Ethno-State', restrictions in Free Speech and the State as a Moral actor - why would they endorse Biden?

I'll give you a clue:

The White Supremecist says: "White people are inherently special, therefore they should rule over everyone"
The current Left-wing says: "White people are inherently spec... privileged, therefore they need to be guilty about it"

The bit that is the issue is the first part... the actually racist part.

When Richard Spencer makes that comment, he's not doing it out of any laudable goal, He's doing it because he has a vested self-interest in promoting the group that promotes things like 'Critical Race Theory' - as it does 90% of his job for him.

He's saying they are more competent because they agree with his fundamental racist beliefs, not because he thinks they can run the country well.

And for that reason, when Richard Spencer says that, You, of all people, should absolutely raise one hell of an Argument with him.

Bonez

5th October 2020, 08:10

sugilite

5th October 2020, 14:25

Because they are establishment type Conservatives who don't understand the fundamental principles of individual sovereignty that Conservatism is based on?

You saw the same thing with Brexit in the UK in the Conservative party that nearly ended up destroying it.

So you cast all these defectors under the same umbrella huh? Could it be because Trump is an immoral turd completely incapable of doing the right thing?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/300124353/covid19-experts-criticise-irresponsible-donald-trump-for-leaving-hospital-to-do-driveby-for-supporters

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 15:07

So you cast all these defectors under the same umbrella huh? Could it be because Trump is an immoral turd completely incapable of doing the right thing?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/300124353/covid19-experts-criticise-irresponsible-donald-trump-for-leaving-hospital-to-do-driveby-for-supporters

I'm not sure if that was the correct link, but I'll clarify my comment - in NZ, the UK and the US - recently I've seen a large base of so-called right-wing politicians who don't seem to understand what Conservatism means at it's deepest level.

There's the Conservative for Conservative's sake types e.g. "We've always done it like that, so we'll always continue to do it like that"
There's the Religious Conservatives types e.g. "The Bible says to do it like that, so we should do it like that"
Then there is the 'true' Conservative e.g. "We want to have the smallest influence over your life possible, to ensure a well run system"

It's distinct from Libertarianism, in that it accepts that there must be certain boundaries and encroachment of personal freedoms by the state for a functioning system (for example, a Search Warrant), but that these should be tightly bounded with appropriate oversight.

You could probably post a list of National MPs for example who both you and I would agree are Twats and whilst me might broker a difference on the whys, most of them that I would place in the 'Twat' category would be due to their alignment with the first 2 groups.

Getting back to the Libertarian aspect - the rise of ACT and David Seymour as a fundamentally Libertarian option is a testament to what I mean.

husaberg

5th October 2020, 17:04

“Take away your guns, take away your Second Amendment. No religion, no anything. Hurt the Bible. Hurt God. He’s against God.”

When President Trump uttered these words last week, he sparked the usual outrage in the world beyond his base. His accusations against Joe Biden, who is a serious Catholic Christian, who has not indicated distaste for the Second Amendment, seemed so wide of the mark and so completely undisciplined (“hurt God”?) that they were dismissed as a spasm of desperation from an incumbent now well behind in the polls. One commentator said Mr. Trump was just throwing mud at the wall in the hopes that something would stick.
https://www.governing.com/context/Playing-the-Religious-Card-A-Long-American-History.html

In 2015, after Trump said he attends Marble, the church publicly stated he "is not an active member" of the church. In November 2019, Trump appointed his personal pastor, televangelist Paula White, to the White House Office of Public Liaison.

Yet I never knew this or cared really but its interesting how desperate Trump is getting to cast aspersions on other where he is actually lacking.

Biden, who carries a rosary in his pocket and attends Mass every Sunday, is known as a deeply devout person of faith, and his campaign sees electoral implications in that — in part because Biden has tried to frame this election as a clear moral contrast between Trump and himself.

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 19:02

His accusations against Joe Biden, who is a serious Catholic Christian, who has not indicated distaste for the Second Amendment

Except, y'know when he said 'DAMN RIGHT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR AR-15s!'

Which would indicate quite the distaste for the 2nd Amendment.

Something Something 'Shall not be infringed' something.

sugilite

5th October 2020, 19:31

Except, y'know when he said 'DAMN RIGHT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR AR-15s!'

Which would indicate quite the distaste for the 2nd Amendment.

Or just a distaste for the public having assault weapons meant for war. They are simply designed to kill as many human beings as efficiently and as quickly as possible. The public simply do not need such weapons. End fucking of.

Katman

5th October 2020, 19:41

husaberg

5th October 2020, 19:48

Or just a distaste for the public having assault weapons meant for war. They are simply designed to kill as many human beings as efficiently and as quickly as possible. The public simply do not need such weapons. End fucking of.

Silly, you are forgetting that TDL knows more about the US constitution than that US Supreme court does.

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not hear appeals of a slew of cases involving gun laws, dealing a blow to Second Amendment activists who seek to expand the rights of gun owners.
In an order released Monday morning, the court denied petitions for appeals of 10 cases.
The cases rejected by the court involved questions of whether laws banning interstate handgun sales in some cases violate the Second Amendment, whether there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense, if Illinois and Massachusetts can ban assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, and whether a state can limit handgun permits to people who demonstrate a specific need for self-defense.

But hey TDL will still claim to know more and argue they are wrong plus all sorts of arguments that were never made ad infinitum while ignoring the elephant in the womb with the comb over and any and all lies he tells.......
What's the bet he still claims he is right even when the US supreme court has already ruled he is a not.

Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. In the federal court system’s present form, 94 district level trial courts and 13 courts of appeals sit below the Supreme Court.

but above this we had TDL a man who is not a judge or even a lawyer.............

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/07/20/what-the-2020-supreme-court-term-means-for-us-gun-laws/?slreturn=20200905041812

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 19:59

Or just a distaste for the public having assault weapons meant for war. They are simply designed to kill as many human beings as efficiently and as quickly as possible. The public simply do not need such weapons. End fucking of.

Despite Husa's protestations, the 2nd Amendment, both in it's theoretical conception and it's implementation was definitive about the Public having weapons meant for War.

This is because one of the reasons for having it in the first place was so that the Public could fight a war against the state, should the state turn tyrannical.

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 20:03

Silly, you are forgetting that TDL knows more about the US constitution than that US Supreme court does.

But hey TDL will still claim to know more and argue they are wrong plus all sorts of arguments that were never made ad infinitum while ignoring the elephant in the womb with the comb over and any and all lies he tells.......

Interesting how you included in your list, Magazine Capacity laws, perhaps you should look at the recent ruling by the US Federal court on the matter, specifically that California's High Capacity Magazines are unconstitutional.

So in this case, it's not that I claim to know more, it's that I just need to point to their latest ruling and claim that YOU are wrong.

Danger Mouse

5th October 2020, 20:04

pritch

5th October 2020, 20:12

Liar.
1. Ar15 is not an "assault weapon".
2. They are not designed for killing people.

Stop lying.

You must be a man for fine distinctions. Mind explaining why an AR15 is not an assault weapon? Not arguing, just seeking to understand.

pritch

5th October 2020, 20:16

Intriguing puzzle. There was mention, I think on TV1 News, that Trump was not happy with news releases from the White House. I've checked several US sources and can see nothing as yet, but shown below is Kayleigh McEnany's current Twitter profile.

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 20:25

You must be a man for fine distinctions. Mind explaining why an AR15 is not an assault weapon? Not arguing, just seeking to understand.

Firstly, 'Assault Weapon' has no technical definition.

Secondly, 'Assault Rifle' requires it to have 3 things: Fed by a detachable box magazine, fires an intermediate cartridge and be capable of Select Fire (going between Semi-auto and full-auto)

Civillian ARs are not capable of Select Fire, ergo are not Assault Rifles.

pritch

5th October 2020, 20:39

Firstly, 'Assault Weapon' has no technical definition.

Secondly, 'Assault Rifle' requires it to have 3 things: Fed by a detachable box magazine, fires an intermediate cartridge and be capable of Select Fire (going between Semi-auto and full-auto)

Civillian ARs are not capable of Select Fire, ergo are not Assault Rifles.

Well I had no desire to get into an argument with you but... I'm reliably informed by people who carried them in the US Army that most military issue M16s were not select fire. Mine was, but it was an early issue, later ones were semi auto only. Id'a thunk a military issue M16 is beyond question an assault rifle? Or possibly an assault carbine depending on the relevant dimensions?

FJRider

5th October 2020, 20:45

Despite Husa's protestations, the 2nd Amendment, both in it's theoretical conception and it's implementation was definitive about the Public having weapons meant for War.

This is because one of the reasons for having it in the first place was so that the Public could fight a war against the state, should the state turn tyrannical.

Bullshit.

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is a right for people to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense. Does carrying firearms for their "Own defense" mean carrying them openly in the street ... ??? Is this for their own defense in their daily life ... in their homes (and on the street). Or ... specifically ... to prepare ... and be prepared to fight a civil war against their own tyrannical Government. ... (definition of tyrannical: exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way) What would be a [B]cruel and arbitrary way mean in real life to you that would require the use of firearms ... ??

If the people don't like their Government ... they should just vote them out. It's the US of A for fucks sake ... not the fucking Ukraine ..

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 20:52

Well I had no desire to get into an argument with you but... I'm reliably informed by people who carried them that most military M16s were not select fire. Mine was, but it was an early issue, later ones were semi auto only. Id'a thunk a military issue M16 is beyond question an assault rifle? Or possibly an assault carbine depending on the relevant dimensions?

Well, y'know - here I am....

but getting back to your point - I'd ask for a citation first an foremost.

I think it's the A3 or the A4 variant that dropped full auto in favour of Burst fire only - however Burst Fire places the rifle in the same category as any other full-auto firearm (in the US the terminology is 'Machine Gun' - which applies to any full-auto or burst first firearm), and therefore burst fire still meets the criteria of being Select Fire.

If memory serves, the technical definition is that more than one round is fired with a single pull of the trigger, which burst fire meets.

Wiki Link, on the right showing the Trigger combination, none listed as showing Safe/Semi only (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Summary_of_differences)

However, I'll add to that, that it may be similar to the British SLR vs the FAL, where I think the British opted for a Semi only variant, whereas the standard FAL was capable of Full-Auto, so there may be a national variant, referred to as an 'M16' (but actually a local variant of the AR platform - like the NZDF LMT MARS-L) that they carried which didn't have Full Auto, but then even if carried by a soldier - if it lacks the fun switch, it's not an Assault Rifle.

Kickaha

5th October 2020, 20:53

Something Something 'Shall not be infringed' something.

They infringe upon it all the time, certain people are not allowed to lawfully own firearms so that is bullshit

Maybe the well regulated militia should fight them with bow and arrows and slingshots.

How many of these people actually belong to a "well regulated militia"

Kickaha

5th October 2020, 20:54

whereas the standard FAL was capable of Full-Auto

They weren't considered very good as a full auto, NZ Army had semi auto

pritch

5th October 2020, 21:00

They weren't considered very good as a full auto, NZ Army had semi auto

The cooks and drivers also had the full auto version but it was truly a load of shite. The SAS may have had some SLRs modified to fire full auto, but having fired them I fail to see why.

TDL, Citation? I got that from discussing such things with people who carried them in the service of the US of A.

FJRider

5th October 2020, 21:00

Maybe the well regulated militia should fight them with bow and arrows and slingshots.

There were a few predating the first US Government. This led to many towns (now cities) with the prefix of Fort.

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 21:09

Bullshit.

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is a right for people to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense. Does carrying firearms for their "Own defense" mean carrying them openly in the street ... ??? Is this for their own defense in their daily life ... in their homes (and on the street). Or ... specifically ... to prepare ... and be prepared to fight a civil war against their own tyrannical Government. ... (definition of tyrannical: exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way) What would be a [B]cruel and arbitrary way mean in real life to you that would require the use of firearms ... ??

If the people don't like their Government ... they should just vote them out. It's the US of A for fucks sake ... not the fucking Ukraine ..

Read the Federalist papers.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

The whole point of the 'Well regulated Militia' was to decentralize and localize the means by which to defend an area (County, State, Country), without having to use a standing Army because of the fear that the Government might grow tyrannical and use a standing army against the People.

And it's not like this is Conjecture - they spell it out quite clear that seeing what some of the European kingdoms had done, they decided that a well armed populace is the ultimate check and balance to a Governments use of Force.

FJRider

5th October 2020, 21:09

The cooks and drivers also had the full auto version but it was truly a load of shite.

Drivers and cooks usually had M16's ... but auto's (on auto) used a lot of ammo.

Larger caliber weapons were too bulky in vehicles. Light small weapons easily carried and easy to hold getting in (and out in a hurry) were preferred by drives at the "Sharp" end. But they were very short range weapons.

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 21:12

They infringe upon it all the time, certain people are not allowed to lawfully own firearms so that is bullshit

I believe those people (at least nowadays) are convicted Felons - and as such, the consequence of their crimes removes their claim to certain rights (not just the right to bear arms)

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 21:13

They weren't considered very good as a full auto, NZ Army had semi auto

Heh - the description I've heard is 'Near uncontrollable' - but I believe the NZ SLRs were based on the British Pattern, which would affirm my memory.

pritch

5th October 2020, 21:13

Drivers and cooks usually had M16's ... but auto's (on auto) used a lot of ammo.

Larger caliber weapons were too bulky in vehicles. Light small weapons easily carried and easy to hold getting in (and out in a hurry) were preferred by drives at the "Sharp" end. But they were very short range weapons.

Infantry had Brens, GPMGs or M60s depending where you were geographically speaking. Transport had heavy barrel SLRs instead. The infantry would not want those for a wart on their arse as the instructors put it.

Obviously, as you say, drivers didn't carry LMGs around. A transport company would have them for defence though.

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 21:18

TDL, Citation? I got that from discussing such things with people who carried them in the service of the US of A.

Well, as far as the Military standards go - all M16 variants have either Burst Fire or Full Auto (or both), and therefore Assault Rifles.

I'd suggest most likely the people you were chatting with didn't consider Burst Fire to be Full Auto and so didn't reference it as such.

pritch

5th October 2020, 21:19

Heh - the description I've heard is 'Near uncontrollable' - but I believe the NZ SLRs were based on the British Pattern, which would affirm my memory.

Drop the "near". Problem was on auto each successive round fired as the barrel was at the top of it's recoil. If fired from say a kneeling position, after a very few shots the barrel would be vertical.

Your burst fire theory is anachronistic. That didn't exist until about 1983. So that's nearly twenty years after the introduction of the M16 - probably more until they were on general issue.
I believe the guys who told me their issue M16s were semi auto only. So semi auto only M16s are assault rifles?

FJRider

5th October 2020, 21:36

The whole point of the 'Well regulated Militia' was to decentralize and localize the means by which to defend an area (County, State, Country), without having to use a standing Army because of the fear that the Government might grow tyrannical and use a standing army against the People.

BULLSHIT.

To what "Well regulated Militia" do the citizens wandering freely in the streets ... with the wide variety of firearms from various parts of the world ... actually belong to ... ???

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states. These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia was being referred to as being what is now the US army. [sic]

Not a street of brain dead ignorant hoodlums ... carrying Chinese or Russian weapons.

You like internet link's (apparently) ... try this one ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/

pritch

5th October 2020, 21:40

"A well regulated militia?"

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 22:03

Drop the "near". Problem was on auto each successive round fired as the barrel was at the top of it's recoil. If fired from say a kneeling position, after a very few shots the barrel would be vertical.

Your burst fire theory is anachronistic. That didn't exist until about 1983. So that's nearly twenty years after the introduction of the M16 - probably more until they were on general issue.
I believe the guys who told me their issue M16s were semi auto only. So semi auto only M16s are assault rifles?

Well, you've got the original, the A1 variants before burst fire was a thing.

But getting back to the guys, all the info about standard issue M16s all state either burst or full auto capability.

My reading of Military history is not so shallow as to say 'impossible', only that were it the case then there is some additional info that we are not privy to.

And that whatever they had, was not standard issue

TheDemonLord

5th October 2020, 22:07

BULLSHIT.

To what "Well regulated Militia" do the citizens wandering freely in the streets ... with the wide variety of firearms from various parts of the world ... actually belong to ... ???

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states. These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia was being referred to as being what is now the US army. [sic]

Not a street of brain dead ignorant hoodlums ... carrying Chinese or Russian weapons.

You like internet link's (apparently) ... try this one ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/

Nice Article, and pretty much makes my argument for me.

I get to say "justice Scalia" and his originalist reading of the Constitution (which includes the Federalist papers), and that trumps any opinion you, the Author of the article or anyone else has on the matter.

FJRider

5th October 2020, 22:09

Infantry had Brens, GPMGs or M60s depending where you were geographically speaking. Transport had heavy barrel SLRs instead. The infantry would not want those for a wart on their arse as the instructors put it.

Convoys of vehicles often/usually had trucks and/or jeeps with infantry armed with those. That was aside from freight or personal loaded vehicles.

Heavy barreled SLR's were fucking heavy. And the barrel could not be changed by the squaddie using it after/during heavy firing periods. In WW2 ... the Bren ruled. GPMG's and M60's require a stable platform and experienced operators to be halfway accurate (not the usual description of a cook or driver) ... otherwise ... why bother if you're not going to hit anything. With GPMG's and M60's .. the barrel could be changed ... if you had them (or time to change them).

It sometimes even varies from unit to unit what weapons are carried and used.

When the shit hits the fan ... personal choice of weapons were what you usually carried and/or used. Your life at stake ... you choose.

Obviously, as you say, drivers didn't carry LMGs around. A transport company would have them for defence though.

Only in the Company HQ areas in the rear echelon. Usually.

FJRider

5th October 2020, 22:14

Nice Article, and pretty much makes my argument for me.

I get to say "justice Scalia" and his originalist reading of the Constitution (which includes the Federalist papers), and that trumps any opinion you, the Author of the article or anyone else has on the matter.

Saying what you like is your right ... being right not so much.

So ... describe "A well regulated Militia" in you own words.

TheDemonLord

6th October 2020, 05:35

Saying what you like is your right ... being right not so much.

So ... describe "A well regulated Militia" in you own words.

It does not matter how I describe it, only how the US Supreme Court describes it.

The latter referencing the surrounding and supporting documentation that the purpose is both for an individual's right to self-defense and to give the populace a means to overthrow the government.

You may disagree with that interpretation, however since it is the interpretation repeatedly upheld by the US Supreme Court, it is for intents and purposes, the 'Correct interpretation'

Katman

6th October 2020, 07:32

A well regulated Militia was being referred to as being what is now the US army. [sic]

You should probably look up the meaning of the word 'militia'.

It doesn't refer to a standing army.

It refers to 'the people'.

sugilite

6th October 2020, 08:56

You should probably look up the meaning of the word 'militia'.

It doesn't refer to a standing army.

It refers to 'the people'.

I can really only comment on "the people" that I witnessed in the small-ish rural farm based community in Arkansas. The 2 largest industries in town were banks, banks, banks and yet more banks. The second largest business was drug dispensaries. The number of people off their meds, on the wrong meds, self medicating from one particular doctor who was well known to simply prescribe what ever the fuck was asked for. Then their were the meth and heroin addicts every bloody where. In my opinion these are hardly "the people" that should have access to military weapons with zero training or even a modicum of calm level thinking. By the very nature of the word "Amendment", just change the fucking thing to reflect modern society and weapons. If people want to own these weapons, offer them a pathway to do that which includes training, screening and so on. Just selling them over the counter to anyone makes about as much sense as compulsory whisky shots for school children on the hour every hour.

TheDemonLord

6th October 2020, 09:13

If people want to own these weapons, offer them a pathway to do that which includes training, screening and so on.

Training? Absolutely agree. In fact it was one thing I raised to an Arms Officer about the previous NZ Licencing system, that there should be a practical test as well as the theory (like a Car Licence).
The day I first went to the range, with a Firearm, I went straight to the Range Safety officer and said 'I'm a total Noob, it's my first day at a range on my own, and I'd like some help'.

Now, I was careful and that care and the assistance of the Peers ensured I was safe, but I completely agree - Training should be required. Further to that, I can't think of ANY serious Firearms advocacy or lobbying group that does not advocate for Training. Some might disagree at Training being a requirement, but all agree that people should decide to undertake training of their own free will.

Screening? Also, Absolutely agree (and if the NZ Police had done their screening properly, like their rules said they should, we wouldn't have had an issue) - however the Screening should be limited to the character of the person, not the intended usage.

'And so on' - Now, I know this is a figure of speech and I'm sure this isn't deliberate, but there's something in there that rankles me, Probably because it's the part where good intentions can get hi-jacked. It's also where people who have experienced the negative effects before tend to take the line 'Give them an Inch, they'll take a mile, never give them an inch'.

pritch

6th October 2020, 09:19

Too many people get hung up on the word "militia." It refers to something similar to our territorial army units. People who like to argue about this lean too heavily on the word militia and not enough on the words, "well regulated."

The informal RWNJ militias in the States to whom Trump appeals are not what is mentioned in the Constitution. They are more in the nature of traitors and terrorists.

Katman

6th October 2020, 09:25

I can really only comment on "the people" that I witnessed in the small-ish rural farm based community in Arkansas. The 2 largest industries in town were banks, banks, banks and yet more banks. The second largest business was drug dispensaries. The number of people off their meds, on the wrong meds, self medicating from one particular doctor who was well known to simply prescribe what ever the fuck was asked for. Then their were the meth and heroin addicts every bloody where. In my opinion these are hardly "the people" that should have access to military weapons with zero training or even a modicum of calm level thinking. By the very nature of the word "Amendment", just change the fucking thing to reflect modern society and weapons. If people want to own these weapons, offer them a pathway to do that which includes training, screening and so on. Just selling them over the counter to anyone makes about as much sense as compulsory whisky shots for school children on the hour every hour.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I'm simply pointing out that it is indeed a change in America's constitution that would be required to legally remove 'guns that you don't like' from ownership by 'the people'.

FJRider

6th October 2020, 10:32

You should probably look up the meaning of the word 'militia'.

It doesn't refer to a standing army.

It refers to 'the people'.

Prior Constitution being created (1787) ... there was no "Standing army". Each colony had relied upon the local militia ... made up of part-time civilian soldiers. The American Revolutionary War began in April 1775. The first full regiment of Regular Army infantry, the 3rd Infantry Regiment, was not formed until June 1784. After the war, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded because of the American distrust of standing armies.

The irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army ... with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal.

The beginnings of what would be called The National Guard ... ??? They would be the American equivalent of our own Territorial Army. Not a "Standing army" as such ... but would hold the very requirements to be called a well formed militia.

I doubt if even you could actually claim that the fat gutted armed (and unpaid) rabble wandering the streets ... or even those just "carrying" are capable (in reality) of being .... part of "A Well formed Militia".

Just saying ...

Katman

6th October 2020, 10:48

I doubt if even you could actually claim that the fat gutted armed (and unpaid) rabble wandering the streets ... or even those just "carrying" are capable (in reality) of being .... part of "A Well formed Militia".

And I'm not defending those who are currently wandering the streets carrying weapons - or trying to claim they're a 'well regulated militia'.

I'm merely commenting on the wording of the Constitution and pointing out that it would take a significant change to that Constitution to be legally allowed to demand that 'the people' hand over 'guns that other people don't like'.

husaberg

6th October 2020, 10:49

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I'm simply pointing out that it is indeed a change in America's constitution that would be required to legally remove 'guns that you don't like' from ownership by 'the people'.

Unfortunately the US supreme court disagrees with you.(Well the current balanced one does)

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.
The court rejected 10 different appeals that had piled up in recent months challenging whether various firearms restrictions violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The court also declined to take up appeals challenging assault weapon bans in Massachusetts and Cook County, Illinois, a jurisdiction that includes Chicago.

including the The Massachusetts ban, enacted in 1998, which was modeled after a federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and was not renewed, largely because of Republican opposition in Congress. Cook County enacted its ban in 2006. Both measures barred specific firearms including AK-47s and AR-15s.

But also the Federal court.

Since the June 2008 ruling, over 80 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.

Consistently since the Heller ruling, the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."

The courts have upheld most of these laws as being constitutional

So if you disagree what is it that makes you a better judge of the US constitution than the US supreme court.
do you work in IT or something that gives you superpowers.

FJRider

6th October 2020, 10:55

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I'm simply pointing out that it is indeed a change in America's constitution that would be required to legally remove 'guns that you don't like' from ownership by 'the people'.

You mean ... just as the New Zealand Government has recently done ... ??

The Constitution never specified any particular weapons the "People" could (or couldn't) carry. Thus the Constitution cannot be affected by any law change to ban particular weapons ... or weapons types.

FJRider

6th October 2020, 10:57

And I'm not defending those who are currently wandering the streets carrying weapons - or trying to claim they're a 'well regulated militia'.

I'm merely commenting on the wording of the Constitution and pointing out that it would take a significant change to that Constitution to be legally allowed to demand that 'the people' hand over 'guns that other people don't like'.

Read post #617

FJRider

6th October 2020, 11:04

It does not matter how I describe it, only how the US Supreme Court describes it.

The latter referencing the surrounding and supporting documentation that the purpose is both for an individual's right to self-defense and to give the populace a means to overthrow the government.

You may disagree with that interpretation, however since it is the interpretation repeatedly upheld by the US Supreme Court, it is for intents and purposes, the 'Correct interpretation'

The term "Self Defense" differs from the term "Attack". The term "Overthrow" is not "Defense".

The subtlety of the differences between the two ... may be over your head ...

Just saying ...

TheDemonLord

6th October 2020, 11:10

The term "Self Defense" differs from the term "Attack". The term "Overthrow" is not "Defense".

The subtlety of the differences between the two ... may be over your head ...

Just saying ...

I'll be sure to pass your critique onto the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court.

I again refer you to the Federalist papers which states, quite explicitly, that one of the purposes IS to:

tyranny... would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

TheDemonLord

6th October 2020, 11:17

You mean ... just as the New Zealand Government has recently done ... ??

The Constitution never specified any particular weapons the "People" could (or couldn't) carry. Thus the Constitution cannot be affected by any law change to ban particular weapons ... or weapons types.

Then how come California's Magazine capacity laws were recently declared unconstitutional?

If you listen to any of Justice Scalia's lectures on Youtube (which ironically I'd been listening to before this arose) he articulates it very clearly (in line with his Originalist interpretation):

The constitution is to be read in the manner it was intended, the surrounding history of when it was written informs us as to what the intent was. Language and definitions may change over time (he gives the example of the prohibition of 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' now being read to exclude execution, whereas when written Execution was not considered Cruel nor unusual), however the intent is clear and judgements should be made in the spirit of that intent.

The Challenge on particular weapon types flows from the intent, which is why a Magazine limit can be unconstitutional, even if there is no reference in the Constitution

As Katman rightly points out - One can disagree with either what the constitution says or how the Supreme court interpret it, but the fact is, given we know the recent precedents they have set (and for Husa's benefit, declining to hear a case is not the same as making a decision on a case), we have to defer to their interpretation.

Katman

6th October 2020, 11:20

You mean ... just as the New Zealand Government has recently done ... ??

Then Joe Biden should probably just be up front about his plan to amend the 2nd Amendment - instead of just saying "damn straight we're coming for your AR15s".

FJRider

6th October 2020, 11:39

I'll be sure to pass your critique onto the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court.

I again refer you to the Federalist papers which states, quite explicitly, that one of the purposes IS to:

So you think untrained but (well ??) armed citizens should fight alongside (or instead of) the already well formed ... and well armed National Guard .. ???

National Guard units are in the Army and Air Force. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States. National Guard units are under the dual control of the State governments and the federal government.

as defined by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_10_of_the_United_States_Code

Control by STATE government can give separation from Federal control in times of Political unrest ... with a lesser degree of the chance of having an "Armed mob" making rash decisions regarding any military actions ... "on the peoples" behalf.

FJRider

6th October 2020, 11:46

Then Joe Biden should probably just be up front about his plan to amend the 2nd Amendment - instead of just saying "damn straight we're coming for your AR15s".

You think ... :innocent:

Probably ... he announced his intention ... without actually having a plan on how he can actually achieve it.

Probably ... to gauge how much support (or resistance [and where the resistance comes from])

Not unlike a few political "Promises" made in THIS country by those holding some power.

TheDemonLord

6th October 2020, 11:57

So you think untrained but (well ??) armed citizens should fight alongside (or instead of) the already well formed ... and well armed National Guard .. ???

National Guard units are in the Army and Air Force. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States. National Guard units are under the dual control of the State governments and the federal government.

as defined by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_10_of_the_United_States_Code

Control by STATE government can give separation from Federal control in times of Political unrest ... with a lesser degree of the chance of having an "Armed mob" making rash decisions regarding any military actions ... "on the peoples" behalf.

Again.

It doesn't matter what I think.

It's what the Supreme Court and the Founding Fathers think. All I am doing is pointing to their interpretation as the one that holds weight and deferring to it.

sugilite

6th October 2020, 12:10

'And so on' - Now, I know this is a figure of speech and I'm sure this isn't deliberate, but there's something in there that rankles me, Probably because it's the part where good intentions can get hi-jacked. It's also where people who have experienced the negative effects before tend to take the line 'Give them an Inch, they'll take a mile, never give them an inch'.

'and so on' can be assumed as continuing along the common sense pathway I was talking about. My post was not meant as a rough draft to be passed on to the supreme court, hence the inference to common sense. Note: I used the word "path" as against the term "obstacle course".

FJRider

6th October 2020, 12:32

Then how come California's Magazine capacity laws were recently declared unconstitutional?

So ... were the "Laws" there amended to change it back ... ??

The constitution is to be read in the manner it was intended, the surrounding history of when it was written informs us as to what the intent was.

Should we do the same ... as per the Treaty of Waitangi ... WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN here in New Zealand ... in "The manner it was INTENDED ... THEN ... ???

Language and definitions may change over time (he gives the example of the prohibition of 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' now being read to exclude execution, whereas when written Execution was not considered Cruel nor unusual), however the intent is clear and judgements should be made in the spirit of that intent.

You can't have "The manner in which it was intended" and then say ... "Language and definitions may change". The constitution is not LAW.

Amendments can (and have been) be made in the past. This point has already been made in this thread.

Watching American politics from the comfort of our couches here in NZ ... and discussing it ... is similar to watching a game of Chess from the sidelines ... and having no capability to change (or advise) any of those playing the game. Any vehement argument/opinions/discussion will have little effect on the later outcome of any political decisions made there.

But you could post a link to this thread to those there you feel need your opinion.

Good luck with that.

The Challenge on particular weapon types flows from the intent, which is why a Magazine limit can be unconstitutional, even if there is no reference in the Constitution

Laws or constitutional "Intent" ... I have already commented on. Not mentioned in the constitution means there was NO intent OR NEED to mention it.

Simple really. Any implication there was "intent" is in only the imagination of some. The imagination of some is quite vivid as you will agree ... just on that point alone.

As Katman rightly points out - One can disagree with either what the constitution says or how the Supreme court interpret it, but the fact is, given we know the recent precedents they have set (and for Husa's benefit, declining to hear a case is not the same as making a decision on a case), we have to defer to their interpretation.

If your agreement (if you agree with Katman) suddenly makes it correct ... it may supprise you to learn ... it actually might not necessarily concur as being "the Letter of the Law". Or even be in any way correct.

You HAVE been known to be wrong you know ... as he has been ... on more than one occasion.

Just saying ... ;)

FJRider

6th October 2020, 12:37

Again.

It doesn't matter what I think.

I've ALWAYS held that belief.

I'm glad we concur on THAT ... :yes:

Just saying ... :shifty:

TheDemonLord

6th October 2020, 12:52

So ... were the "Laws" there amended to change it back ... ??

My understanding is there is no requirement to have it be amended, only that it cannot be enforced

Should we do the same ... as per the Treaty of Waitangi ... WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN here in New Zealand ... in "The manner it was INTENDED ... THEN ... ???

Well, we already do in a way - consider Commercial Fishing quotas granted by the Treaty or the allocation of frequencies for Mobile phone use.

Personally, I believe that the buyback breached the Treaty, so I'd be tempted to advocate an originalist reading of the Treater.

You can't have "The manner in which it was intended" and then say ... "Language and definitions may change". The constitution is not LAW.

I really can, because I'm citing Supreme Courts Justices in both instances. Some of whom are Originalist (Justice Scalia types) who take the 'as intended' view, others like Justice Ginsberg took the opposite view.

I tend to lean more on the Originalist view, but with a caveat that there comes a point where times have changed to the point that an amending of an amendment may be needed.

Amendments can (and have been) be made in the past. This point has already been made in this thread.

So then the solution is simple, Amend the Amendment. Except to outright state that, especially if it was to amend anything in the Bill of Rights, would be political Suicide in the US, hence why no one has the balls to outright state it.

Laws or constitutional "Intent" ... I have already commented on. Not mentioned in the constitution means there was NO intent OR NEED to mention it.
Simple really. Any implication there was "intent" is in only the imagination of some. The imagination of some is quite vivid as you will agree ... just on that point alone.

And that is simply not true. We know this because when writing their opinion, Supreme Court Justices frequently cite other works from which either the item being debated is derived from or is relevant to. If Memory serves, the Magna Carta has been frequently cited in Legal Opinion, despite it not being part of any Law or Constitution in the US but specifically because the US Constitution was derived from it.

Same too with the Federalist Papers, they expand upon the ideas that were codified into the Constitution, so when there is a question that the letter of the Constitution does not directly address, we can look to the intent that is rather clearly spelled out.

We can also look to legal precedent and opinion - namely that if previously, the consensus as to what the meaning was, was X, then it should hold true that for future decisions, an interpretation of X should be used and not Y.

If your agreement (if you agree with Katman) suddenly makes it correct ... it may supprise you to learn ... it actually might not necessarily concur as being "the Letter of the Law". Or even be in any way correct.

You HAVE been known to be wrong you know ... as he has been ... on more than one occasion.

Just saying ... ;)

There are things in the Constitution that I personally don't entirely agree with. However, those disagreements are trumped by what the interpretation of the Supreme court is. I keep coming back to this point because all of your post is attributing to me what I'm deferring to the actual authority and arbiters of the Constitution.

jasonu

6th October 2020, 13:53

You mean ... just as the New Zealand Government has recently done ... ??

Except gang guns of course because they are only used in gang business, no threat to the ordinary man.

Then again that was a buy back not a gun grab that cost the country a shit ton and didn't really achieve anything and definitely didn't achieve the Labour government's goal of making the country safer.

husaberg

6th October 2020, 14:09

E

Then again that was a buy back not a gun grab that cost the country a shit ton and didn't really achieve anything and definitely didn't achieve the Labour government's goal of making the country safer.

That's a bold statement do you have any actual evidence to support it...
lets look at aussies example
https://i.insider.com/561817dbbd86ef195c8b5a7f?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webphttps://uploads.guim.co.uk/2016/03/08/firearm-homicides.svg

From 1979 to 1996, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths was rising at 2.1% per year. Since then, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths has been declining by 1.4%, with the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide.

In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.

The lead author of the study, Professor Simon Chapman, said a similar study had been conducted 10 years ago, and that the researchers had repeated it to see if gun-related deaths were continuing to decline, finding that they had.
“I’ve calculated that for every person in Australia shot in a massacre, 139 [people] are shot through firearm-related suicide or homicides, so they are much more common,” Chapman said.
“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”

The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards,
but shit the USA is all okay they top all the charts

Chapman said more than half of those who had conducted mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand had been licensed gun holders.

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/atlas_h1ucbtnwm2x.png?w=1400&strip=all&quality=75
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/B2P3EWiAS1mWOGVRIOfGkbUqM0Q=/0x0:800x1571/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:800x1571):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10228297/gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png/250px-Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/c8lpDOjNNQUjJnzJj5eZ1-dTEjQljiREgxVzUV6oo-bWKTho6qoSboF9l3AB4hhQaIdRA2_6Ve_k9Rr61WkJH3hNPfOp NTzL6pfxAIXUhdfRmWRpmcY_oDcScioRn7V3T7RdKI_bLlpSBZ zNRh3EztKaOwZSz9Xijl4JXn6b-Uiqx98U1AOxVCH01KwgovNXzKQ-bx9oYUvn9tHAuda57NhpyOw
Merica
but don't worry Jason and TDL have a feeling they know better they have no evidence mind you........

TheDemonLord

6th October 2020, 14:49

That's a bold statement do you have any actual evidence to support it...
lets look at aussies example
Merica

So, an already decreasing Murder rate, linked mainly to the crack-down on gang violence that the Ban didn't have any effect on?

NZ despite having Semi-Autos during all of the 90s, 2000s, 2010s not having a significantly different rate than Australia, despite your claim that they are 'sooooo much more dangerous'

And the best bit - using the data that is most in favour of the NZ Government - less than 30% were handed in.:lol:

pritch

6th October 2020, 14:57

That's a bold statement do you have any actual evidence to support it...
lets look at aussies example

That was interesting. As I looked at it I wondered how Switzerland were doing, 'cause they may have more guns per head than anybody. They do feature quite high.

Switzerland is God's country to buy shooting glasses. In this country not many opticians understand the requirements of prescribing shooting glasses. In Switzerland thay all do.

jasonu

6th October 2020, 15:28

Wank wank wank.......

The NZ gun buy back was a total and expensive failure. It didn't remove guns from gangs or those that are likely to do bad things with them and hasn't made NZ any safer, just a little poorer.

onearmedbandit

6th October 2020, 16:17

People, this is not the Firearms thread, this is a thread about Trump. If you want to debate gun law here in NZ or anywhere else in the world then there is already a thread on this subject.

husaberg

6th October 2020, 16:22

The NZ gun buy back was a total and expensive failure. It didn't remove guns from gangs or those that are likely to do bad things with them and hasn't made NZ any safer, just a little poorer.

So you actually have nothing just your opinion, yet refuse to accept facts.
Yet also live in a country that has some of the laxest gun laws and also some of the highest numbers of multiple murder and gun violence yet cant quite figure out there might be a connection. Classic.
why is it in your opinion that the USA has so higher number of mass killings and gun deaths per head of population, yet other countries have tight gun laws and far lower gun related deaths.....
https://www.microburbs.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/shootings_map-1024x726.pnghttps://media2.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Video/151203/tdy_tom_shootings_151203.jpg
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/app/uploads/2015/12/shooting-infographic2-840x1024.jpg
https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets %2F180522094603-t1-us-intl-shooting-list.jpg
https://cdn.britannica.com/95/164395-050-45B7BF5B/shootings-criteria-Mother-Jones-data-set-magazine-2012.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/www.newsgram.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Mass-Shoot.png
https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/us-gunviolence-W-1020x680.jpg

FJRider

6th October 2020, 16:46

Except gang guns of course because they are only used in gang business, no threat to the ordinary man.

Then again that was a buy back not a gun grab that cost the country a shit ton and didn't really achieve anything and definitely didn't achieve the Labour government's goal of making the country safer.

The guns NOT sold to the Government in that operation ... were not the total number of guns of the type that were owned legally prior to the scheme. I know of a few gun owners myself ... that I know have still got some of that class of weapon. The mind boggles on the number still out there in private (and previously legal) hands.

ALL upstanding members of our communities ... and responsible gun owners.

So ... can they in all fairness ... continue to point their finger at the gangs ... saying ... take THEIR guns off them .. ??

And they do.

Stylo

6th October 2020, 16:56

People, this is not the Firearms thread, this is a thread about Trump. If you want to debate gun law here in NZ or anywhere else in the world then there is already a thread on this subject.

Only confirms to me OAB, there is a link here and, an obvious one.

Houston, we have a problem . Join the dots.

husaberg

6th October 2020, 17:07

Only confirms to me OAB, there is a link here and, an obvious one.

Houston, we have a problem . Join the dots.

In 2016, the NRA spent more than $30 million on behalf of the Trump campaign, according to Federal Election Commission data. It was a staggering number compared to 2012, when the group spent about $13 million to try to unseat President Barack Obama and elect Mitt Romney. The Trump campaign represented the lion's share of the group's spending—the NRA spent $54 million on the 2016 elections in total.

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/e5df719/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1600x900+0+0/resize/840x473!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fd6%2F78%2Fdd100a2f18 d96f7ac7eb41c96bde%2Fla-1507044063-mkeqb6gcc6-snap-image
According to the IRS they spent 54 million dollars at the last election
But it's been reported that the NRA lost 64 million dollars last year, so maybe trumps running it as well.........:whistle:

onearmedbandit

6th October 2020, 17:18

Only confirms to me OAB, there is a link here and, an obvious one.

Houston, we have a problem . Join the dots.

The dots are too far apart.

Stylo

6th October 2020, 17:19

https://media-ncd.cmgdigital.com/photo/2018/02/16/senate%20large_1518816503818_10826055_ver1.0_1280_ 720.jpg
According to the IRS they spent 54 million dollars at the last election
But it's been reported that the NRA lost 64 million dollars last year, so maybe trumps running it as well.........:whistle:

If Trumps not running it, the herd mentality that looks up to Donald, certainly are.

It's a culture over there that, while I can appreciate it's presence. I cannot understand .

Educate me.

husaberg

6th October 2020, 17:23

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-shW1ojB35xs/XWb0dXXEc4I/AAAAAAACJCw/hptn4tiyA_8XykmildPzzkohnS9V1b9HgCLcBGAs/s1600/Fox%2BNews%2BOwns%2BRepublican%2BParty%2Bwith%2BPu tin%2Band%2BTrump%2Bobeys%2Borders%2Bwith%2BMcconn ell%2Band%2Bryan%2Bas%2Bgenerals%2BProgressive%2BP ower.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/d4/06/6a/d4066a7ff36fc0cc8162ee6370a0dfdb.jpghttps://pics.me.me/benghazi-russia-72-months-0-charges-0-indictments-pleas-38-indictments-pleas-54481621.pnghttps://pics.me.me/the-obama-foundation-doing-well-and-not-under-investigation-the-38895410.pnghttps://2.bp.blogspot.com/-c0_xKe9rQ0I/WUl_Laz3TOI/AAAAAAAAdjY/dMR-boj53ZAmbqeN7Y3akJBUTR-8q7ZAgCLcBGAs/s1600/screen-shot-2017-03-20-at-10-05-19-am.jpg

Dean

6th October 2020, 18:53

Well done Husaberg 👍

You have completely schooled those two with hard facts (little talk, a lot of action).

Sad thing is we are now witnessing the difference between misinformed and delusional people.

They won’t concede or acknowledge any of the statistics you mentioned.
Just run off on tangents, minimise and pick apart the edges of the data.

Take this as a social experiment - let’s see what they reply with.
Watch and observe folks.

FJRider

6th October 2020, 19:34

My understanding is there is no requirement to have it be amended, only that it cannot be enforced

If it is still in Legislation ... you can be still charged with it. Circumstances in each case may vary enough to prove some laws were broken.

Well, we already do in a way - consider Commercial Fishing quotas granted by the Treaty or the allocation of frequencies for Mobile phone use.

Personally, I believe that the buyback breached the Treaty, so I'd be tempted to advocate an originalist reading of the Treater.

What's a Treater ... ?? Is that a Trick or Treater ... as on Halloween ... ??

What part of the treaty was possibly breached ... ??? The various classes of guns did not exist when it was written. At the time the treaty was written ... they were simply confiscated. With NO payment. And the Government DID have THAT option instead of the buy-back. And we STILL have people that still have weapons of that class in their possession ... because they did not sell back ALL the (now illegal class of guns) they had.

I really can, because I'm citing Supreme Courts Justices in both instances. Some of whom are Originalist (Justice Scalia types) who take the 'as intended' view, others like Justice Ginsberg took the opposite view.

I tend to lean more on the Originalist view, but with a caveat that there comes a point where times have changed to the point that an amending of an amendment may be needed.

Can you seriously take the "As originally written/intended" ... AND still agree with the modern "Times have changed" principles ... then still claim to be consistent with your policies ... ?? A finger in both pies wont work.

So then the solution is simple, Amend the Amendment. Except to outright state that, especially if it was to amend anything in the Bill of Rights, would be political Suicide in the US, hence why no one has the balls to outright state it.

A specific clarification of the 2nd amendment is required. Any legal phrase or term ... that open to speculation on it's actual (and legal) meaning and/or interpretation ... must be clarified.

Amendments to the Bill of rights have been made before ... and can be be still done again. If due process is followed ... and seen to be fair to the MAJORITY of the citizens and ensuring peace and harmony in the community ... it would be the biggest political coup in US political history.

But it probably wont be Trump pushing for the amendment.

And that is simply not true. We know this because when writing their opinion, Supreme Court Justices frequently cite other works from which either the item being debated is derived from or is relevant to. If Memory serves, the Magna Carta has been frequently cited in Legal Opinion, despite it not being part of any Law or Constitution in the US but specifically because the US Constitution was derived from it.

Same too with the Federalist Papers, they expand upon the ideas that were codified into the Constitution, so when there is a question that the letter of the Constitution does not directly address, we can look to the intent that is rather clearly spelled out.

At best you can only guess as to what intent they had over 200 years ago. Those that cite anything will do so ... if it favor's the point they're trying to make ... or their intentions ... and their beliefs.

We can also look to legal precedent and opinion - namely that if previously, the consensus as to what the meaning was, was X, then it should hold true that for future decisions, an interpretation of X should be used and not Y.

So ... you can't quote a specific case ... but still feel you've made a valid point. Even in a court of law ... more than that is required.

The words you seem to like using ... is might ... should ... could ... which also seldom stand up (or out) in a Court of law.

There are things in the Constitution that I personally don't entirely agree with. However, those disagreements are trumped by what the interpretation of the Supreme court is. I keep coming back to this point because all of your post is attributing to me what I'm deferring to the actual authority and arbiters of the Constitution.

Don't bring Trump into the conversation. I did ... but it's my post and I'm allowed.

I personally don't actually give a flying fuck about the US constitution. It affects me as little ... as someone taking a piss in the Nevada desert.

Good on you for coming back though ... even with your piss (see what I did there) poor arguments ...

husaberg

6th October 2020, 19:46

.........................
population Canada vs US
34.57 million vs 316.67 million
or about 9 times more than Canada
347455

Danger Mouse

6th October 2020, 20:54

You must be a man for fine distinctions. Mind explaining why an AR15 is not an assault weapon? Not arguing, just seeking to understand.

"Assault rifle" is select fire, meaning capable of firing automatically. Ar15 is semi automatic only.

Danger Mouse

6th October 2020, 21:03

That's a bold statement do you have any actual evidence to support it...
lets look at aussies example
https://i.insider.com/561817dbbd86ef195c8b5a7f?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webphttps://uploads.guim.co.uk/2016/03/08/firearm-homicides.svg

The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards,
but shit the USA is all okay they top all the charts

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/atlas_h1ucbtnwm2x.png?w=1400&strip=all&quality=75
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/B2P3EWiAS1mWOGVRIOfGkbUqM0Q=/0x0:800x1571/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:800x1571):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10228297/gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png/250px-Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/c8lpDOjNNQUjJnzJj5eZ1-dTEjQljiREgxVzUV6oo-bWKTho6qoSboF9l3AB4hhQaIdRA2_6Ve_k9Rr61WkJH3hNPfOp NTzL6pfxAIXUhdfRmWRpmcY_oDcScioRn7V3T7RdKI_bLlpSBZ zNRh3EztKaOwZSz9Xijl4JXn6b-Uiqx98U1AOxVCH01KwgovNXzKQ-bx9oYUvn9tHAuda57NhpyOw
Merica
but don't worry Jason and TDL have a feeling they know better they have no evidence mind you........

Oh look. Gun related deaths were already declining BEFORE the change. Not to mention the change in definition of mass killing which skews the stats.

husaberg

6th October 2020, 21:24

"Assault rifle" is select fire, meaning capable of firing automatically. Ar15 is semi automatic only.

cool story
but as US law differs in these states no cigar
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, California.
But hey I am sure you can change their minds with the strength of your arguments.........

husaberg

6th October 2020, 21:51

Oh look. Gun related deaths were already declining BEFORE the change. Not to mention the change in definition of mass killing which skews the stats.

congratulations, for figuring that out, but they accelerated at a faster rate afterwards by almost 75% did you not read the text you quoted?

The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards.

it's 100 less people killed each year. if the population wasn't increasing. and guess what its higher in the states where more guns were handed back.
if you want to claim that as its only a 100 extra people getting shot and killed it's nothing. you must be pretty pathetic especially given that is about l1200 less people killed since the laws were changed.
What's funny is you claim it's significant that's its falling then try and say oh that same rate being doubled is insignificant.:weird:
That's a special kind of self-importance you place on playing with a gun you don't need.

TheDemonLord

6th October 2020, 22:38

If it is still in Legislation ... you can be still charged with it. Circumstances in each case may vary enough to prove some laws were broken.

But if it isn't enforceable by the Courts....

What part of the treaty was possibly breached ... ??? The various classes of guns did not exist when it was written. At the time the treaty was written ... they were simply confiscated. With NO payment. And the Government DID have THAT option instead of the buy-back. And we STILL have people that still have weapons of that class in their possession ... because they did not sell back ALL the (now illegal class of guns) they had.

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

As for the not-existing part - Deep Sea fishing and Radio Waves didn't exist (or weren't known to exist) but yet they are covered by the Treaty...

Can you seriously take the "As originally written/intended" ... AND still agree with the modern "Times have changed" principles ... then still claim to be consistent with your policies ... ?? A finger in both pies wont work.

I'm stating what the two interpretations are, I've stated I tend to side more on the originalist P.o.V. This isn't hard to follow.

A specific clarification of the 2nd amendment is required. Any legal phrase or term ... that open to speculation on it's actual (and legal) meaning and/or interpretation ... must be clarified.

Amendments to the Bill of rights have been made before ... and can be be still done again. If due process is followed ... and seen to be fair to the MAJORITY of the citizens and ensuring peace and harmony in the community ... it would be the biggest political coup in US political history.

But it probably wont be Trump pushing for the amendment.

And curiously, neither have the Democrats, despite stating their desire to confiscate Firearms, isn't it funny - that none of them have outright stated it, almost like they know it would be political suicide and so try much more tangential and deceptive tactics....

At best you can only guess as to what intent they had over 200 years ago. Those that cite anything will do so ... if it favor's the point they're trying to make ... or their intentions ... and their beliefs.

Except they wrote a large number of treatises and letters expanding on what their intent was, so not really guesswork.

So ... you can't quote a specific case ... but still feel you've made a valid point. Even in a court of law ... more than that is required.

If you were observant, you'd know I'd already hinted at 2 cases: Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia

In Particular 2 Justices putting forth the opinion that Execution itself was Cruel and Unusual and therefore unconstitutional. The subsequent case affirmed that since the Death Penalty was not considered Cruel and Unusual when the 8th amendment was written, it cannot be judged as Cruel and Unusual by todays standards.

I personally don't actually give a flying fuck about the US constitution. It affects me as little ... as someone taking a piss in the Nevada desert.

Good on you for coming back though ... even with your piss (see what I did there) poor arguments ...

Except I've not brokered an Argument, I've pointed to what the Supreme Court says and simply reply "This is the correct interpretation, as per the Supreme Court".

You seek a different interpretation - and whilst I might agree with some of the points you raise about wording, practicality and the differences between now and then - what actually matters is how the Supreme Court interpret it - which is what I defer to.

TheDemonLord

6th October 2020, 22:40

congratulations, for figuring that out, but they accelerated at a faster rate afterwards by almost 75% did you not read the text you quoted?

3% to 5%

Not exactly earth shattering differences then, not like 3% to 20% or something that is statistically relevant for a dataset with such a low number of samples.

Kickaha

7th October 2020, 06:26

What about a chart showing the overall murder rate once the guns were banned, just because they're not using guns doesn't mean people aren't being killed

Kickaha

7th October 2020, 06:28

And curiously, neither have the Democrats, despite stating their desire to confiscate Firearms, isn't it funny - that none of them have outright stated it, almost like they know it would be political suicide and so try much more tangential and deceptive tactics....
.

You mean some Firearms

pritch

7th October 2020, 08:08

Meanwhile back on topic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T5BrmBVV5Q

TheDemonLord

7th October 2020, 08:24

You mean some Firearms

"Oh we just want to limit Handguns, they are used in most of the Gang Shootings"
"Well, no one needs an AR for home defence"
"Why would anyone need a Military grade 'Sniper Rifle'"
"Shotguns cause an unnecessarily large number of wounds"

No, I really don't mean 'some', I do mean all.

sugilite

7th October 2020, 09:19

"Assault rifle" is select fire, meaning capable of firing automatically. Ar15 is semi automatic only.
Oh shit, your reply to my earlier quote was serious!
Be sure to tell the dead hedgehog on the road he was run over with a car using a manual gearbox, not an automatic one. I'm sure it will make a World of difference to the poor little guy :rolleyes:

Danger Mouse

7th October 2020, 10:31

Oh shit, your reply to my earlier quote was serious!
Be sure to tell the dead hedgehog on the road he was run over with a car using a manual gearbox, not an automatic one. I'm sure it will make a World of difference to the poor little guy :rolleyes:

hey while we are at it, a motorbike and a truck both have wheels. lets just call them cars

jasonu

7th October 2020, 11:31

Oh shit, your reply to my earlier quote was serious!
Be sure to tell the dead hedgehog on the road he was run over with a car using a manual gearbox, not an automatic one. I'm sure it will make a World of difference to the poor little guy :rolleyes:

You've lived here, you should know better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+an+ar+15+an+assault+rifle&oq=is+an+ar15&aqs=chrome.5.0j69i57j0l6.6975j1j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

sugilite

7th October 2020, 13:11

Liar.
1. Ar15 is not an "assault weapon".
2. They are not designed for killing people.

Stop lying.
OK, so now I know you post was not a piss take, it warrants further scrutiny. As mentioned below, the AR15 for a time was in fact designated as an assault rifle. It was developed for the military and used by the military in it's earlier AR-10 designation and later its AR-15 designation. So in regards to your point number 2, it was in fact designed to kill people. Simply disabling full auto hardly makes it much less effective at killing people - hence it's starring role in many, many mass killings.
Maybe you should hold your own posts to the same level of scrutiny you place upon others posts.

hey while we are at it, a motorbike and a truck both have wheels. lets just call them cars
My automatic gearbox vs a manual gearbox analogy relates to versions of the AR-15 coming in the military version with full auto vs civilian versions without full auto. Automatic vs manual if you like. I feel it is a bit silly having to explain this, but you know - Wooooosh and all that ;)

You've lived here, you should know better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+an+ar+15+an+assault+rifle&oq=is+an+ar15&aqs=chrome.5.0j69i57j0l6.6975j1j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Well, there is this in the wikipedia article you kindly linked to - "Some versions of the AR-15 were classified as "assault weapons" and banned under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act in 1994 within the United States. This act expired in 2004.". So at least at one time they were classified as assault rifles.
Having said that, I'm clearly no expert in weaponry. My only exposure to guns outside of cops wearing them and people wandering around walmart using their open carry license to full effect is my father in law who hunts with a musket style rifle, to give the critters a chance as he puts it. As he kept our freezer full of venison, I'm not so sure the critters fared that well :lol:

TheDemonLord

7th October 2020, 13:36

Excuse me whilst I put on my favourite Pedant hat.

OK, so now I know you post was not a piss take, it warrants further scrutiny. As mentioned below, the AR15 for a time was in fact designated as an assault rifle. It was developed for the military and used by the military in it's earlier AR-10 designation and later its AR-15 designation. So in regards to your point number 2, it was in fact designed to kill people. Simply disabling full auto hardly makes it much less effective at killing people - hence it's starring role in many, many mass killings.
Maybe you should hold your own posts to the same level of scrutiny you place upon others posts.

Assault Rifle is a technical Term. The AR-15 that is commercially available has never been an Assault Rifle.
'Assault Weapon' is a Political Term, that can be applied to just about anything they want to ban.

Furthermore, the AR-10 wasn't developed for the Military, it was borne out of a concept of a lightweight survival rifle and a desire to make full-auto controllable with the full-power 7.62 NATO cartridge.

The US Trials to replace the M1 Garand (which lead to the adoption of the M14) had already begun, Armalites decision to submit their rifle to this process was an after-thought, not the main purpose.

To conclude, like most Arms inventions, the purpose is not to Kill people, but to solve a technical problem - in the case of the AR-10, it was to both reduce the weight of the Rifle and to keep the Recoil inline with the shoulder, to prevent a fulcrum being formed by a conventional buttstock resulting in full-auto fire making the Muzzle rise uncontrollably.

Well, there is this in the wikipedia article you kindly linked to - "Some versions of the AR-15 were classified as "assault weapons" and banned under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act in 1994 within the United States. This act expired in 2004.". So at least at one time they were classified as assault rifles.
Having said that, I'm clearly no expert in weaponry. My only exposure to guns outside of cops wearing them and people wandering around walmart using their open carry license to full effect is my father in law who hunts with a musket style rifle, to give the critters a chance as he puts it. As he kept our freezer full of venison, I'm not so sure the critters fared that well :lol:

As above, Assault Weapon is not synonymous with Assault Rifle. One has a specific technical meaning, the other is a political term to associate things they don't like with the technical term 'Assault Rifle'.

FJRider

7th October 2020, 13:40

But if it isn't enforceable by the Courts....

So ... you're a Judge or a Lawyer now ... When did that happen ... ;)

As for the not-existing part - Deep Sea fishing and Radio Waves didn't exist (or weren't known to exist) but yet they are covered by the Treaty...

Perhaps we should restrict them to be only allowed to fish from their canoes that they have to paddle out with ... as per their traditional method.

You'd be in agreement with that. The Treaty ... as per intended and meant at the time the treat was written ... ;)

I'm stating what the two interpretations are, I've stated I tend to side more on the originalist P.o.V. This isn't hard to follow.

My interpretations of your posts ... may vary considerably ... :innocent: ... with your ideas and opinions. Which neither of those will make any fucking difference to the United States Constitution. Or how it will (or should) be interpreted there ... nor will have any influence on those making any (if any) changes to how it is written ... or how it is applied in LAW ... THERE.

All I see in your posts ... is YOU beating your own drum. And deaf to everything and anything else.

And curiously, neither have the Democrats, despite stating their desire to confiscate Firearms, isn't it funny - that none of them have outright stated it, almost like they know it would be political suicide and so try much more tangential and deceptive tactics....

An amendment to the 2nd will sort more than a few issues out. Otherwise ... the shit-fights continue ad nauseam

Except they wrote a large number of treatises and letters expanding on what their intent was, so not really guesswork.

Intent at the time written or a modern interpretation to suit modern views and legislation. One or the other.

A foot in both camps is never going to work. Until the legislation is clearly written without compromise or confusion ... the shit-fights will continue.

And the same ... as per the Treaty of New Zealand.

If you were observant, you'd know I'd already hinted at 2 cases: Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia

I've already mentioned my opinions of your hints. Your "Hints" are non existent bullshit. You just add or include stuff you just thought of later ... and try to appear clever.

AND FAIL.

In Particular 2 Justices putting forth the opinion that Execution itself was Cruel and Unusual and therefore unconstitutional. The subsequent case affirmed that since the Death Penalty was not considered Cruel and Unusual when the 8th amendment was written, it cannot be judged as Cruel and Unusual by todays standards.

So says a person that favours "The original intent" of the Constitution. Can a modern Government really be happy to intentionally take the life of a citizen ... just because they took the life of another first ... ??? That's not punishment ... that's retribution.

All in the name of JUSTICE.

Except I've not brokered an Argument, I've pointed to what the Supreme Court says and simply reply "This is the correct interpretation, as per the Supreme Court".

If your stated opinions differ from mine ... or your (or anybody else's) "Interpretation" differs from how I think it should be ... expect an argument.

You seek a different interpretation - and whilst I might agree with some of the points you raise about wording, practicality and the differences between now and then - what actually matters is how the Supreme Court interpret it - which is what I defer to.

I do nothing of the kind. The laws and legislation (and Constitutions) of all countries must be clear and unambiguous. Otherwise JUSTICE will be at the mercy of any particular judge's "Interpretation" of the law.

Valid reasons ... not opinions or interpretations.

Opinions are as common as ass-holes ... and often known for the amount of shit they excrete.

And translations will vary ... depending on the language being used. If your life hung on the balance of how a translator interpreted your statements in a court of law ... would you feel comfortable ... ??

pritch

7th October 2020, 13:58

It really does seem that Spanky has finally lost the plot.

The Chair of the Federal Reserve has made impassioned pleas for a stimulus package to prevent the US economy stalling completely.

To the horror of his campaign people Trump yesterday announced that there will be no stimulus package until after he has been reelected.

Read the tweet below and Trump's response. That was not sent by somebody 'of sound mind.'

TheDemonLord

7th October 2020, 14:17

Perhaps we should restrict them to be only allowed to fish from their canoes that they have to paddle out with ... as per their traditional method.

You'd be in agreement with that. The Treaty ... as per intended and meant at the time the treat was written ... ;)

Wrong, I want one or the other.

If the standard for the Treaty is that subsequent technology and discoveries are to be included, then the Government can't compel you to sell them a Semi-Auto Rifle.
If the standard for the Treaty is that subsequent technology and discoveries are not to be included, then all those lucrative treaty-claim quotas can be sold to the highest bidder.

Pick one.

My interpretations of your posts ... may vary considerably ... :innocent: ... with your ideas and opinions. Which neither of those will make any fucking difference to the United States Constitution. Or how it will (or should) be interpreted there ... nor will have any influence on those making any (if any) changes to how it is written ... or how it is applied in LAW ... THERE.

All I see in your posts ... is YOU beating your own drum. And deaf to everything and anything else.

You are trying to make the argument as to what a 'Well regulated Militia' means, I'm pointing to the US case law that clearly articulates how it is to be interpreted. I'm not saying I agree with it, only that it is the ONLY interpretation that is relevant.

Intent at the time written or a modern interpretation to suit modern views and legislation. One or the other.

A foot in both camps is never going to work. Until the legislation is clearly written without compromise or confusion ... the shit-fights will continue.

Except I've not got a foot in both camps, because I'm deferring in all cases to what the Supreme Court have ruled.

Some of the Justices take the Originalist view (intent at time of writing) some of them take the modernist view (a modern interpretion). However where there is disagreement, there are other items (such as surrounding works by the author or other documents they reference - such as the Magna Carta) that can add context as to how it should be interpreted.

Again, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this, only that it is the way it is done.

I've already mentioned my opinions of your hints. Your "Hints" are non existent bullshit. You just add or include stuff you just thought of later ... and try to appear clever.

AND FAIL.

You sure about that?

If you listen to any of Justice Scalia's lectures on Youtube (which ironically I'd been listening to before this arose) he articulates it very clearly (in line with his Originalist interpretation):

The constitution is to be read in the manner it was intended, the surrounding history of when it was written informs us as to what the intent was. Language and definitions may change over time (he gives the example of the prohibition of 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' now being read to exclude execution, whereas when written Execution was not considered Cruel nor unusual), however the intent is clear and judgements should be made in the spirit of that intent.

As I said, you should pay more attention.

So says a person that favours "The original intent" of the Constitution. Can a modern Government really be happy to intentionally take the life of a citizen ... just because they took the life of another first ... ??? That's not punishment ... that's retribution.

All in the name of JUSTICE.

The question is not whether or not one agrees with The Death Penalty, only that what was meant by 'Cruel and Unusual' does not preclude the Death Penalty in the context of the Constitution.

If your stated opinions differ from mine ... or your (or anybody else's) "Interpretation" differs from how I think it should be ... expect an argument.

Your argument is to do with what does a Well Regulated Militia mean. Mine is pointing to the authoritative source (the US Supreme Court) and saying 'This is what it means, according to the people who's opinion matters on the subject' - you seem to have an issue with that.

I do nothing of the kind. The laws and legislation (and Constitutions) of all countries must be clear and unambiguous. Otherwise JUSTICE will be at the mercy of any particular judge's "Interpretation" of the law.

Valid reasons ... not opinions or interpretations.

Opinions are as common as ass-holes ... and often known for the amount of shit they excrete.

And translations will vary ... depending on the language being used. If your life hung on the balance of how a translator interpreted your statements in a court of law ... would you feel comfortable ... ??

You should really listen to Justice Scalia expand upon that very point, his originalist view is precisely because he fears that a subjective interpretation using the definitions of words at a period in time, whereas taking a view of what the original intent was is a lot more objective.

Especially when there is a large volume of supporting material to really make it clear what the intent was - and in this case, we have that supporting material in the form of the Federalist Papers where it is explicit as to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

You may disagree with the practical application or that if that is the original intent, then the wording should be changed or perhaps even that since the US has a standing Army the entire amendment should be revised.

but what you may not do is try and argue that your interpretation trumps that of the Supreme Court.

FJRider

7th October 2020, 15:01

If the blah ... blah ... blah ...

All persons in New Zealand are subject to the same laws and legislation.

As I've stated in previous posts ... your interpretation of anything is (at best) unlikely to be correct.

And usually (at best) ....

BULLSHIT.

TheDemonLord

7th October 2020, 15:13

All persons in New Zealand are subject to the same laws and legislation.

Are they? Remember when Maori could get compliance instead of fines for certain Infringements.

As I've stated in previous posts ... your interpretation of anything is (at best) unlikely to be correct.

And usually (at best) ....

BULLSHIT.

The bit you miss is that it's not MY interpretation.

It's the Supreme court interpretation, which IS correct.

All I'm doing is referencing it.

Viking01

7th October 2020, 15:14

RDJ

7th October 2020, 15:39

All persons in New Zealand are subject to the same laws and legislation.

As I've stated in previous posts ... your interpretation of anything is (at best) unlikely to be correct.

And usually (at best) ....

BULLSHIT.

You're certainly familiar with BS.

And no, all persons in New Zealand are not subject to the same laws and legislation. The Treaty and Iwi, Labour perverts, Richie H, Carl S, Boochani, the Shane Jones Corruption Fund, the Winston Peters Racetrack Funds + SFO, armed-up ethnic gangs, tribal roadblocks, etc.

pritch

8th October 2020, 09:05

Trump is having a bad day. The latest Rasmussen poll has him trailing Biden by twelve points. The Rasmussen poll is Trump's favourite as it usually favours Republicans. The other polls should all be worse.

Danger Mouse

8th October 2020, 09:07

TheDemonLord

8th October 2020, 09:10

sugilite

8th October 2020, 17:45

Fly picks Bullshit winner in USA Vice Presidents debate.

https://abc6onyourside.com/resources/media/68b9778e-78fb-41ee-952d-bc179a9b09f4-large16x9_AP20282085044567.jpg

Kamala Harris was a bit disappointing though. A fair bit of waffling bullshit from that side of the debate too.

TheDemonLord

8th October 2020, 18:00

Fly picks Bullshit winner in USA VP debate

Kamala Harris was a bit disappointing though. A fair bit of waffling bullshit from that side of the debate too.

Still, it was nice to have a civilized debate

sugilite

8th October 2020, 18:49

Yep, this, definitely this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqENwyonvBc

sugilite

9th October 2020, 04:33

Putin nominates and endorses his pick for the United States Presidency - Donald trump.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/7/putin-says-he-has-noted-joe-bidens-sharp-anti-russian-rhetoric

:msn-wink:

pritch

9th October 2020, 08:01

For anyone who still thinks Trump's tweets don't influence anything. What a collection of MAGAts. I'll post pics later.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/michigan-governor-kidnap-plot/2020/10/08/0032e206-0980-11eb-9be6-cf25fb429f1a_story.html

They should charge the idiot in chief with being an accessory.

pritch

9th October 2020, 08:18

It might be uncharitable of me but I wonder how many own Harleys. That thought only occurs because when Anonymous doxxed the Missouri KKK there were quite a few Harleys in the family photos.

TheDemonLord

9th October 2020, 08:37

It might be uncharitable of me but I wonder how many own Harleys. That thought only occurs because when Anonymous doxxed the Missouri KKK there were quite a few Harleys in the family photos.

Woah!

A Whole 5 people!

pritch

9th October 2020, 08:56

Woah!

A Whole 5 people!

It may be outside your usual routine, but read the newspaper item. There are others involved. Although it's entirely possible that most of the others are FBI informants.

On a lighter note.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd9-xEa3AEk

TheDemonLord

9th October 2020, 09:10

It may be outside your usual routine, but read the newspaper item. There are others involved. Although it's entirely possible that most of the others are FBI informants.

It was interesting, and any plot to kill people should be met with the full force of the law.

I think however it is a perfect demonstration as to how small the supporter base for actual 'White Supremacy' and 'Extremists' is, and how utterly incompetent they are.

sugilite

9th October 2020, 09:22

It was interesting, and any plot to kill people should be met with the full force of the law.

I think however it is a perfect demonstration as to how small the supporter base for actual 'White Supremacy' and 'Extremists' is, and how utterly incompetent they are.

Why is it that far left groups appear so much better organized? Is it because the far right ones were educated and Trump University? :innocent:

TheDemonLord

9th October 2020, 09:40

Why is it that far left groups appear so much better organized? Is it because the far right ones were educated and Trump University? :innocent:

Might have something to do with university 'educated', mainstream 'approved', Corporate virtue Signalling and major financial backing

vs

Billy Bob and his 5 angry relatives in a basement, with an FBI informant.

sugilite

9th October 2020, 09:59

Might have something to do with university 'educated', mainstream 'approved', Corporate virtue Signalling and major financial backing

vs

Billy Bob and his 5 angry relatives in a basement, with an FBI informant.

And their leader spouting "Free Michigan!"

pritch

9th October 2020, 10:19

Why is it that far left groups appear so much better organized? Is it because the far right ones were educated and Trump University? :innocent:

A genuine LOL.

Then there's this arsehole. The TV channels still get him on for interviews. Only "the best people" indeed.

These "family values" evangelical politicians often turn out to be kiddie fiddlers or closeted gays. They're against abortion - unless it's someone they got pregnant.
But that's the same the world over, Graham Capill anyone?

pritch

9th October 2020, 10:52

Major cracks are showing. He's going after his most loyal enablers.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/trump-covid-fox-interview/index.html

sugilite

9th October 2020, 13:10

Hallelujah Amen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snOebCXlMbU

sugilite

9th October 2020, 18:48

It is usually quite obvious when a person has integrity, and I see a lot of it in this guy. Trump and his administration really need to be held to account for their handling of the virus - they won't if course, but holy hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmLxhQEasWI

sugilite

9th October 2020, 19:28

fuckin hell, this guy is becoming a tinpot despot more and more as each day passes.
"Oh, my political opponent seems very popular, jail him!" :laugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf6GM4x9QE0

Danger Mouse

9th October 2020, 19:41

fuckin hell, this guy is becoming a tinpot despot more and more as each day passes.
"Oh, my political opponent seems very popular, jail him!" :laugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf6GM4x9QE0

Yeah he's unstable. Thinks he can run the country like a bent property developer in 1980s New York. Like he was.

pritch

9th October 2020, 21:03

husaberg

9th October 2020, 21:17

And another one bites the dust. This one was formely known a "client number two". But if you've never been anywhere or done anything that will probably mean nothing.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-trump-mega-fundraiser-elliott-broidy-charged-in-scheme-to-influence-trump-admin-for-malaysian-businessman/main-info

LOL

During the 2016 campaign, Broidy, a Los Angeles-based investor, helped corral big donors to support Trump’s campaign. After the election, he was appointed to serve as a national deputy finance chairman for the Republican National Committee.
Broidy resigned from that post in April 2018 in the wake of a report that he had paid a former Playboy model $1.6 million in exchange for her silence about a sexual affair. Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen — another RNC fundraiser — helped arrange the settlement, Broidy acknowledged at the time.
The charges against Broidy are the latest blow to the RNC’s fundraising leadership under Trump. Cohen, who also served as a deputy finance chair of the RNC, resigned his party position in June 2018, several months before he pleaded guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion and campaign finance violations committed on Trump’s behalf
According to documents filed in connection with Davis’s plea and people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation, Low was funding Broidy’s lobbying efforts — both to get the 1MDB investigation dropped and to get Guo sent back to China. Guo is a vocal online critic of that country’s government and is wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.
In the A former Justice Department employee and Michel acquaintance, George Higginbotham, has pleaded guilty to helping illicitly move tens of millions of dollars from Low into the United States to finance the lobbying effort.past few years, Guo has been closely aligned with Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s former campaign chief and top White House strategist

.

I can just imagine the press release from Trump..... i hardly knew him he had a minor riole etc etc etc

pritch

9th October 2020, 21:26

So as we expected Trump didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize. Neither did Jacinda. The World Food Programme took it away.

sugilite

10th October 2020, 08:40

So as we expected Trump didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize. Neither did Jacinda. The World Food Programme took it away.

Trump is still a shoe in for the No Bull, he really is a piece of shit prize :yes:

pritch

10th October 2020, 08:57

The reality TV star is to undergo a medical examination "live" on Fox. What a clown. The doctor involved is mainly known for spreading misinformation about the pandemic. Of course the doctor might get some first hand experence of the virus, because Trump is likely contagious.

A massive poll has Trump ten points behind Biden and that's about the average of the other polls. I'm constantly amazed that it's only ten points.

husaberg

10th October 2020, 09:23

A massive poll has Trump ten points behind Biden and that's about the average of the other polls. I'm constantly amazed that it's only ten points.

According to a poll I read today There is an 80% chance the Democrats will also control the Senate.
So even if Trump won he's essentially a lame duck, so expect more trump ordered government lockdowns if the democrats have Congress and the Senate.

pritch

10th October 2020, 10:04

Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, has announced he has some of Hillary's emails. He hopes to release them before the election.

Bugga! That'll sure damage her campaign. :whistle:

pritch

10th October 2020, 10:35

A different approach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS8SUqqZD5k

Danger Mouse

10th October 2020, 11:00

According to a poll I read today There is an 80% chance the Democrats will also control the Senate.
So even if Trump won he's essentially a lame duck, so expect more trump ordered government lockdowns if the democrats have Congress and the Senate.

I think trump actually believes his own BS that it could never happen

onearmedbandit

10th October 2020, 20:19

I have now removed over 100 posts of off topic content from this thread. I couldn't be arsed dealing with all the moaning I'd get about 'he started it not me' if I handed out infractions.

Instead of shitballing this thread to PD like every other American political thread so far I've tried to avoid that by pruning it. However, from now on any off topic post will be met with infractions, whether you started it or not. And you will continue to receive them for each post. Otherwise I'll just PD the thread. The ball is in your court.

This includes responding to this post. If you have an issue you'd like to raise regarding this PM one of the moderators. Any discussion on here regarding this post or any other off topic content will be dealt with.

pritch

11th October 2020, 07:30

The Taliban have endorsed Donald Trump for president. The Trump campaign have declined their endorsement.

Danger Mouse

11th October 2020, 07:39

The Taliban have endorsed Donald Trump for president. The Trump campaign have declined their endorsement.

Really? Do you have a link please?

pritch

11th October 2020, 08:47

Really? Do you have a link please?

A few seconds with the search engine of your choice should provide several. And my recent post in the firearms thread was not ained at you, it's just that your timing is unfortunate.

pete376403

11th October 2020, 09:48

Really? Do you have a link please?

A senior Taliban member told CBS News, "Trump might be ridiculous for the rest of the world, but he is sane and wise man for the Taliban."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-on-trump-we-hope-he-will-win-the-election-withdraw-us-troops/

husaberg

11th October 2020, 10:16

Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements

Dictators
Vladimir Putin, President of Russia (1999–2008, 2012–present) (All-Russia People's Front)
Kim Jong-un, Supreme Leader of North Korea (2011-present)

Former US presidents.
NONE

Terroist oranisations
Taliban

Other groups
Ku Klux Klan to which trump said when asked "Would you just say unequivocally you condemn them and you don't want their support? " Tapper asked."I have to look at the group. I mean, I don't know what group you're talking about," Trump responded
Richard Spencer, a well-known neo-Nazi, in a speech opening up the conference said: “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!
https://youtu.be/1o6-bi3jlxk
Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke

Celebrities
Johnny Rotten, Sex Pistols
Brandi Love, porn actress, It’s not easy being a supporter of President Donald Trump – especially if you work in the porn industry.
Roseanne Barr,
Gary Busey
Chuck Woolery
John Ratzenberger (Cliff form Cheers)
Mike Tyson
Paula White televangelist

sugilite

11th October 2020, 11:56

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C76XMCJCVs

sugilite

11th October 2020, 11:58

The trump supporting sheep when he is finally exposed beyond doubt as the crook he is.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-9-3DtUzug

sugilite

11th October 2020, 12:00

If course the white house knows he was patient zero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlrRv6JNjQ0

pritch

11th October 2020, 14:05

pritch

11th October 2020, 14:22

This has reappeared on TikTok, but the comparison of styles is stark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsBOWSjOLsE

husaberg

11th October 2020, 14:22

Amy Thorn, a registered nurse, who spoke at the Republican National Convention defending Trump's response to the Corona virus, has shot another woman.
Only the best people.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/10/nurse-who-spoke-at-2020-rnc-busted-for-shooting-woman/

She clearly had little options but to shoot her, as you know cars can't, remove people from situations. Clearly the safest option when as a republican trump supporter losing an argument with an unarmed person is to go to your car and get a gun:whistle:

Williamson Police Chief Grady Dotson said Thorn claimed she had become fearful for her safety and had told Whitt she had a gun. “She went to the car and got the gun out of the car,” Dotson said, local news outlet the Mingo Messenger reported.

In a statement to police, Thorn claimed the shooting was in self-defense.
Police responded to the 800 block of Vinson Street Thursday late afternoon after a gunshot was fired."Through the investigation we came to find out that two females got into a verbal argument, turning into one of the females getting a gun. She did shoot the victim one time in the abdomen area,"

When asked for a comment resident Trump said he was to busy spreading COVID 19 at the Whitehouse to claim he never knew her or deny ever having met her.:innocent:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/10/11/01/34242228-8827325-image-a-24_1602375579569.jpg

pritch

11th October 2020, 16:22

Sometimes you've just got to shake your head.

husaberg

11th October 2020, 16:35

Sometimes you've just got to shake your head.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWke8pfWAAI8pMw.jpghttps://i.pinimg.com/originals/d2/5c/7f/d25c7f243b172b1d755f4c51dae2b982.jpghttps://i.imgflip.com/2nfht1.jpg
https://junkee.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Time-Donald-Trump-Jr.jpg

Danger Mouse

11th October 2020, 17:22

pics removed

Haha, these are gold. More please.

husaberg

11th October 2020, 18:08

During a surprise trip to Walter Reed on Nov. 16, 2019, Trump mandated signed NDAs from both physicians and nonmedical staff, most of whom are active-duty military service members, these people said. At least two doctors at Walter Reed who refused to sign the NDAs were subsequently not permitted to have any involvement in the president's care, two of the people said.
Anyone providing medical services to the president — or any other American — is automatically prohibited by federal law from disclosing the patient's personal health information without consent. The existing legal protection for all patients under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, raises the question of why Trump would insist that staff members at Walter Reed sign NDAs.

"Any physician caring for the President is bound by patient-physician confidentiality guaranteed under HIPAA, and I'm not going to comment on internal procedures beyond that," White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere said in a statement.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/white-house-remains-mum-questions-about-trump-s-annual-physical-n1213266

The reason for his trip last year remains shrouded in mystery.
That visit to Walter Reed was unannounced and remained shrouded in secrecy for two days as the president remained out of public view and as the White House declined to answer questions about it.

Laava

11th October 2020, 18:17

Sometimes you've just got to shake your head.
He has male stripper fantasies. Prob in front of Put In. Sorry, I meant Putin...

husaberg

11th October 2020, 18:30

https://www.demilked.com/magazine/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/5d7602d27f938-trump-sharpiegate-fake-hurricane-map-memes-50-5d7228eab7889__700.jpghttps://www.demilked.com/magazine/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/5d7602d37c891-trump-sharpiegate-fake-hurricane-map-memes-46-5d72276292137__700.jpg
https://www.demilked.com/magazine/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/5d7602d3c10a7-trump-sharpiegate-fake-hurricane-map-memes-44-5d72260f7c46c__700.jpghttps://www.demilked.com/magazine/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/5d7602d4ea8e9-1169587763668312066-png__700.jpg

pritch

11th October 2020, 21:56

The DPRK have displayed a ‘massive’ new ballistic missile. Presumably there was no big beautiful letter previous, so it’s just possible the Kim/Trump love affair is over.

Danger Mouse

12th October 2020, 09:04

The DPRK have displayed a ‘massive’ new ballistic missile. Presumably there was no big beautiful letter previous, so it’s just possible the Kim/Trump love affair is over.

Bigly. Kovefe.

TheDemonLord

12th October 2020, 09:20

sugilite

12th October 2020, 11:59

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2018/10/14/18/5038840-6275077-image-a-2_1539538581442.jpg

When the perennial anti-establishment avatar of Johnny Rotten is wearing a MAGA T-Shirt, might give one a moment to pause and think.

Afterall, this is the same man that tried to blow the whistle on Jimmy Saville in the 70's, so not one that is afraid to stand on principles regardless of the personal cost.
So many, many republicans have come out against Trump, and you write them off as being misguided, and a washed up punk rocker from another country is on the money :laugh:

TheDemonLord

12th October 2020, 12:08

So many, many republicans have come out against Trump, and you write them off as being misguided, and a washed up punk rocker from another country is on the money :laugh:

Actually...

Yes.

I've expressed my reasons for why I don't hold much weight for the 'many, many republicans' prior - however Johnny Rotten - whatever your thoughts are on him, has always been true to himself and encouraged everyone else to be true to themselves, called it like he sees it, expressed disdain for any form of authoritarianism and for the general celebrity industry that gets built up around art.

A lot of people who are into Punk looked at Johnny Rotten aghast as if this was some great impossibility, however from what I've heard from Johnny, I personally consider it an inevitability.

Edit: And Washed up I think is a bit harsh - he's still got all of his Marbles and is still as sharp, articulate and savage as he always was.

sugilite

12th October 2020, 12:16

Actually...

Yes.

I've expressed my reasons for why I don't hold much weight for the 'many, many republicans' prior - however Johnny Rotten - whatever your thoughts are on him, has always been true to himself and encouraged everyone else to be true to themselves, called it like he sees it, expressed disdain for any form of authoritarianism and for the general celebrity industry that gets built up around art.

A lot of people who are into Punk looked at Johnny Rotten aghast as if this was some great impossibility, however from what I've heard from Johnny, I personally consider it an inevitability.

Edit: And Washed up I think is a bit harsh - he's still got all of his Marbles and is still as sharp, articulate and savage as he always was.

Yes, I'm sure those republicans have no where near the knowledge that you do with all what is happening within their party with demolition man Trump. :bleh:

So is Trump being responsible holding rallies at this early stage of his recovery?
Is his rally organizers doing enough by taking peoples temps and handing out masks at these rallies while the leader openly disdains masks?
Would you take your family to a Trump rally tomorrow?

Pretty clear as well that the Trump team is deliberately obstructing releasing when Trumps last negative test was. He really is very likely to be the main spreader at that Rose Garden event.

TheDemonLord

12th October 2020, 13:15

Yes, I'm sure those republicans have no where near the knowledge that you do with all what is happening within their party with demolition man Trump. :bleh:

I think the more accurate way to put it that those republicans have vested interests that don't align with Trump and the wider voterbase.

It's very similar to the Brexit crisis that nearly sunk the UK Conservatives - there are those that are Conservative because 'We've always done it this way' and who stagnate any form of change for the sake of thwarting change.

I'm not down with that crowd.

Then there are the Conservatives who want to conserve the ideals of an individualistic and meritocratic society - and yes, taking a massive swipe at the authoritarian, Radical and puritanical left is an added bonus that comes with Trump.

Someone like Johnny Rotten falls squarely on the Individualistic side of things (some might even say Anarchy... In the UK... side), hence his support for Trump.

So is Trump being responsible holding rallies at this early stage of his recovery?
Is his rally organizers doing enough by taking peoples temps and handing out masks at these rallies while the leader openly disdains masks?

It's a difficult question.

The short answer is: I'm not sure.

On the one hand - I believe that the people should be making their own informed decisions as to whether to attend and to what level of 'safety' they are willing to adopt.
On the other - There has to be a degree of responsibility born by those organizing the Rally.

Then you have to factor in whether it's indoors or outside etc. etc.

There's also some thoughts around the right to engage in politics being tied to potential personal risk and that this right is so important that we should be holding political events. In addition some thoughts around would we be acting this way during Flu season?

Would you take your family to a Trump rally tomorrow?

Hell Yeah! None of us are in the at-risk bracket and it would probably be a fun day out with the fam.

Pretty clear as well that the Trump team is deliberately obstructing releasing when Trumps last negative test was. He really is very likely to be the main spreader at that Rose Garden event.

Impossible, the God Emperor would never be a Herald of Nurgle - why do you think he beat the Coof?

Okay, WH40K memes aside (and if you got that reference - +10 internet Points) - This smells of another artificial furor created by a hostile Media and regardless of what the truth is, it will be used to discredit Trump:

Test came back Negative: "When the Highest office in all the land could be taken out by a single Cough, I mean they are meant to have procedures in place to stop this - what does it say about this administration that with the best security and medical science, Trump's mismanagement has exposed him to a deadly pathogen"

Test came back Positive: "When will Donald Trump stop downplaying the virus, he could have killed someone, directly - not through a Drone strike with his callous disregard for the advice given to him by his own scientific team"

sugilite

12th October 2020, 14:15

I think the more accurate way to put it that those republicans have vested interests that don't align with Trump and the wider voterbase.

I should have known better than to ask you this - you always throw people in the same pile as if you have interviewed them all. Trump is a corrupt egotistical narcissist. Hardly a poster boy for conservative politics. You just love the fact he triggers the left, and that is about it really.

It's a difficult question.

The short answer is: I'm not sure.

On the one hand - I believe that the people should be making their own informed decisions as to whether to attend and to what level of 'safety' they are willing to adopt.

You mean like the advice they get from Trump? Masks are bad, I beat the virus, you have nothing to worry about! That advice? You sure do not mind a lot of people dying to get your left wing getting triggered lark huh?

Hell Yeah! None of us are in the at-risk bracket and it would probably be a fun day out with the fam.
And your (and others) parents and grand parents be dammed when you subsequently infect them and they die? This guy in the article linked below could be you - seriously. Your cavalier attitude is what kills people with this virus. Trump would be very, very proud of you champ.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/300129698/the-grief-comes-in-waves-us-covid-sceptic-regrets-throwing-party-that-led-to-deaths

This smells of another artificial furor created by a hostile Media and regardless of what the truth is, it will be used to discredit Trump:

Test came back Negative: "When the Highest office in all the land could be taken out by a single Cough, I mean they are meant to have procedures in place to stop this - what does it say about this administration that with the best security and medical science, Trump's mismanagement has exposed him to a deadly pathogen"

Test came back Positive: "When will Donald Trump stop downplaying the virus, he could have killed someone, directly - not through a Drone strike with his callous disregard for the advice given to him by his own scientific team"
So, uncomfortable answers for both test scenarios - how inconvenient. The people deserve to know just how much disdain this president holds in regards to even his closest allies safety.
Oh but wait, he triggers the left - as you were, all forgiven President Trump :tugger:

Now I know I have said this before, you come across as a very callous individual who has no qualms about bunches of people dying if it in some way supports your position, no matter how puerile that position may be.

TheDemonLord

12th October 2020, 15:22

I should have known better than to ask you this - you always throw people in the same pile as if you have interviewed them all. Trump is a corrupt egotistical narcissist. Hardly a poster boy for conservative politics. You just love the fact he triggers the left, and that is about it really.

Not really - Consider that I've been observing what is currently playing out with Trump on a much smaller scale since around 2010.

When you say he's hardly a poster boy for Conservative Politics, I refer you back to when I posted his Policy list - both you and I agreed that there was nothing extreme or otherwise out-of-place from a typical right-of-Centre viewpoint.

His public persona - well, yeah - and plenty of Republicans regularly critique him on it, Myself included.

As for riling up the Left, it's much more than that - it's getting them to reveal their true colours, or at least the true colours of their activist base.

You mean like the advice they get from Trump? Masks are bad, I beat the virus, you have nothing to worry about! That advice? You sure do not mind a lot of people dying to get your left wing getting triggered lark huh?

If one gets all their advice from one source, then that is their problem.

And your (and others) parents and grand parents be dammed when you subsequently infect them and they die? This guy in the article linked below could be you - seriously. Your cavalier attitude is what kills people with this virus. Trump would be very, very proud of you champ.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/300129698/the-grief-comes-in-waves-us-covid-sceptic-regrets-throwing-party-that-led-to-deaths

You asked the question and now you don't like the answer?

We all take risks - each time you go out and ride or drive - you could kill someone - it could be your parents or grand parents be damned - do you stop driving?

I've not hosted any parties, I've done my part, whilst still thinking that there has been a degree of over-reaction (and I still do).

So, uncomfortable answers for both test scenarios - how inconvenient. The people deserve to know just how much disdain this president holds in regards to even his closest allies safety.
Oh but wait, he triggers the left - as you were, all forgiven President Trump :tugger:

I could easily put spin on it the other way and give comfortable answers, the point was to demonstrate that a demand for evidence does not equal an honest enquiry for the Truth and given that the Media lies about Trump as much as the Media says Trump lies, You'll forgive me for not being charitable.

And this triggers the left business - Whilst I might enjoy it - let me ask you a question:

We've seen the end-result of the Radical Left-Wing activism in the US - the CHAZ/CHOP, Riots, Looting, Summary executions for the Crime of being a Trump support.

Different States, same outcome. If we look to what happened as far back as the French Revolution, it looks awfully similar.

What is the greater evil? Me? Or the current group of puritanical Authoritarians?

Yes, I enjoy the triggering of the Left - but there is a much more serious point to it - I've been observing this slide by the left over the past 10 years. It started in the Atheism community, then spread to Video Games, they tried to do it in Metal - but failed (something about a fiercely individualistic mindset that is an antidote), getting all the way to Knitting apparently - this creeping authoritarian, puritan, politically-correct, marxist derived viewpoint that I regard as not only 'bad' but as demonstrably dangerous.

Trump, by his mere existence, has played the Left and they have shown their real intentions.

It's one thing for me to say these things - people who haven't witnessed it first hand will either brush it off as not affecting them or view people like myself as a bit of tinfoil nutter, however when those same people see the so-called 'Anti-Fascists' behaving just like Fascists, and burning people's businesses down, straight-up executing people and then they watch the evening News, with a reporter infront of a burning building, trying to say with a straight face that it's not a riot, but a peaceful protest - that does all the work for me.

And as I've acknowledged, I do get an immense satisfaction from that, in a sort of 'Well I told you do' manner - does that make me a bad person? Possibly, but I've never claimed to be perfect.

Now I know I have said this before, you come across as a very callous individual who has no qualms about bunches of people dying if it in some way supports your position, no matter how puerile that position may be.

People die everyday from preventable issues. Do you want me to feel immense emotional pain over each one of them? Furthermore, do you feel the grief and sadness as someone in Africa dies from a preventable disease, in the same way you would feel the grief and sadness if someone in your family died?

If not, then you are not much different from me, I'm just blunt about it.

However that is beside the point - If we try and craft a society where everything that could bring about pain and suffering was outlawed, that would be such a despotic tyranny that no one would want to live in it. We've explored this in Film and in Art, We've discussed it in Philosophy, that Freedom and especially Freedom to fail, is worth just about any price.

If that makes me callous, for wanting Freedom for everyone, then so be it.

Katman

12th October 2020, 16:46

Now I know I have said this before, you come across as a very callous individual who has no qualms about bunches of people dying if it in some way supports your position, no matter how puerile that position may be.

Unless someone dies from measles.

He's very caring about that.

ellipsis

12th October 2020, 18:55

...he's the best puppet that, 'they', could have...I bet whoever came up with the concept of him being the leader of disputably, the most incredible power on the planet is feted as a 10 to 1 winner in the big game...

...there have been a couple of puppets of, 'them', that I can recall that were as dangerous...'they' are the serious wielders of ultimate power in the silly little game of life and the result it has on histoire...c'est la vie...

...if any sane person thought that this cunt could get there on some kind of laurels is seriously fucked in the brain...but the other cunts are just as bad...

...just sayin...

sugilite

12th October 2020, 19:43

When you say he's hardly a poster boy for Conservative Politics, I refer you back to when I posted his Policy list - both you and I agreed that there was nothing extreme or otherwise out-of-place from a typical right-of-Centre viewpoint.

His public persona - well, yeah - and plenty of Republicans regularly critique him on it, Myself included.

As nice as your referral is, I agreed with that policy list, sure. However, Trump barely follows it, shit man he cannot even get a replacement out for Obama care and he has had 4 years!
I've barely seen you critique Trump, however defending him is an entirely different matter.

As for riling up the Left, it's much more than that - it's getting them to reveal their true colours, or at least the true colours of their activist base.
Annnnd here we are back at your leftie communists are taking over rhetoric.
How many right wingers been killed by the lefties in the riots? How many have died from the Trump administrations shit poor handling of the pandemic. Open your eyes and focus on the real tragedy playing out - for Gods sake man!

If one gets all their advice from one source, then that is their problem.
So you don't think that the with the presidents words are so shit, so unreliable that it simply should not be followed - and nay, anyone that does - it's their problem? Shhheeeit man, your Republican party are death bringers, but woot woot they are showing up the lefties true colours!!!

You asked the question and now you don't like the answer?

We all take risks - each time you go out and ride or drive - you could kill someone - it could be your parents or grand parents be damned - do you stop driving?

I've not hosted any parties, I've done my part, whilst still thinking that there has been a degree of over-reaction (and I still do).

Other than stating I alone can choose to like or not like an answer to a question I asked, the main point, is you gone done fucked up bro!!! You were not in New Zealand where the Government did a largely good job of containing the virus, you attended a Trump rally for fun! Now some of your relatives are on deaths door and it is your fault you selfish bastard. You gone done got carried away having fun and left your brain out of the equation!

The fact you felt to mention you have not held any parties and done your part kinda pisses all over your cavalier statement that you would attend one of Trumps super spreader events. Snapped bro!

I could easily put spin on it the other way and give comfortable answers, the point was to demonstrate that a demand for evidence does not equal an honest enquiry for the Truth and given that the Media lies about Trump as much as the Media says Trump lies, You'll forgive me for not being charitable.
No one or entity lies as much as Trump - not even close! Wakey, wakey.

It's one thing for me to say these things - people who haven't witnessed it first hand will either brush it off as not affecting them or view people like myself as a bit of tinfoil nutter, however when those same people see the so-called 'Anti-Fascists' behaving just like Fascists, and burning people's businesses down, straight-up executing people and then they watch the evening News, with a reporter infront of a burning building, trying to say with a straight face that it's not a riot, but a peaceful protest - that does all the work for me.

And as I've acknowledged, I do get an immense satisfaction from that, in a sort of 'Well I told you do' manner - does that make me a bad person? Possibly, but I've never claimed to be perfect.
I removed a whole load of your evil commie diatribe to save space, but I note again, you say next to nothing about the republicans criminally negligent handling of covid, which has killed thousands of percent more than the rioters you keep bleating about.

"Yes comrade, I have looted the store, stolen a tv and set the place on fire - we are so much closer now to turning the USA into a communist state!" Give me a fuckin break man :brick:

People die everyday from preventable issues. Do you want me to feel immense emotional pain over each one of them? Furthermore, do you feel the grief and sadness as someone in Africa dies from a preventable disease, in the same way you would feel the grief and sadness if someone in your family died?

If not, then you are not much different from me, I'm just blunt about it.

However that is beside the point - If we try and craft a society where everything that could bring about pain and suffering was outlawed, that would be such a despotic tyranny that no one would want to live in it. We've explored this in Film and in Art, We've discussed it in Philosophy, that Freedom and especially Freedom to fail, is worth just about any price.

If that makes me callous, for wanting Freedom for everyone, then so be it.

What a bunch of waffely bullshit, I never suggested any of the above. You seem keen to point out the handful of right wingers deaths at the not peaceful protests (that are by far outweighed by peaceful protests, you just don't see those reported eh). But it's crickets from you on the thousands the republican party have killed through pretending covid is not a big deal. Nearly the whole republican party are complicit in this tragic federal response, and all because the cowards have got their bully in chiefs nuts firmly on their chin. Yes, I can see why you admire them so, no wait, I really cannot.

husaberg

12th October 2020, 20:28

Trumps new ad uses Dr Fauci statements out of context and without permission.

Dr Anthony Fauci says he was taken completely out of context – and without his permission – in a campaign ad for President Trump lauding the US response to the pandemic.
"I can't imagine that...anybody could be doing more," Fauci is shown saying in the 30-second ad, with the ellipses inserted in a caption to the video, just at the point where there appears to be a split-second break.
According to CNN, Fauci's quote came out of a Fox News interview conducted in March in which he praised the efforts of the White House coronavirus task force. At the time, he spoke about the unprecedented nature of the coronavirus threat and the "all hands on deck" nature of the response.
"Since the beginning, that we even recognised what this was, I have been devoting almost full time on this," Fauci said, according to CNN.
"I'm down at the White House virtually every day with the task force. It's every single day. So, I can't imagine that under any circumstances that anybody could be doing more."
That was before more than 200,000 people had died, economies had opened up too much too quickly, and the barely dented infection rate had begun to rise once again.
"In my nearly five decades of public service, I have never publicly endorsed any political candidate," Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT7Y2ceMLng&feature=emb_logo

husaberg

12th October 2020, 20:31

Inside the lincoln project

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s95VhNZmigw

Hard to believe one of the founders is Kellyane conways Husband

One of the great mysteries that’s plagued the universe since roughly January 2017 is the question of whether or not Kellyanne Conway and her husband, George Conway, actually hate each other as much as their public comments would suggest, or if the whole thing is some kind of three-dimensional chess designed to further the Trump administration’s, and the couple’s own, interests. (Or worse, that the whole thing is some kind of sick foreplay we’ve all been unwittingly forced to be a part of.) For instance, most people would have a problem if their spouse called their boss’s operation “a shit-show in a dumpster fire,” suggested that he’d obstructed justice and engaged in witness tampering, diagnosed him with narcissistic personality disorder, and, over the course of a 11,500-word article laid out why his “ingrained and extreme behavioral characteristics make it impossible for him to carry out the duties of the presidency.” In addition, most people would probably not be thrilled about their spouse attempting to trash-talk them as an anonymous source in the pages of the Washington Post. Is the whole thing performance art? Do the two laugh about it while exchanging sweet nothings in their 15,000-square-foot house? One would have to assume as much! But according to friends of the couple who spoke to the New York Times, it’s all true: They legitimately hate each other’s guts!
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/kellyanne-conway-george-conway-marriage

WASHINGTON — George T. Conway III has described the work of his wife, Kellyanne Conway, for President Trump in terms usually reserved for hostage situations: brainwashed by a cult, suffering from Stockholm syndrome, an overwhelmed mother protecting a destructive man-child.
And if you think it’s all shtick, some wink-and-nod act by a couple who fights by day and snuggles by night, planning a payday after Mr. Trump leaves the scene, think again, say some people close to America’s oddest political couple.
“Those who think this is a 14-dimensional chess game are mistaken,” said Rick Wilson, who with Mr. Conway and several other Republicans formed the Lincoln Project, an effort to beat Mr. Trump in the 2020 election.
Mr. Conway “has taken unequivocal and irreversible actions that have established his bona fides as someone who opposes Donald Trump, and she’s going to be for Donald Trump until the last dog dies,
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/us/politics/george-and-kellyanne-conway.html

sugilite

12th October 2020, 21:06

Inside the lincoln project

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s95VhNZmigw

Kinda blows away DL's assertions that the republican anti Trumpers are fuddy duddies lost in time. A Lot of youth in that team too. :yes:

husaberg

12th October 2020, 21:50

Kinda blows away DL's assertions that the republican anti Trumpers are fuddy duddies lost in time. A Lot of youth in that team too. :yes:

I gave up on TDL when he claimed the nazis were left wing.
He tends to have arguments about stuff that was never posted and whist at the same time ignoring what doesn't suit him.
Not many claim when shown categorically they are wrong instead of sucking it up, claim to be a better judge of US law than the Supreme court.
He has never once admitted his cult leader is anything other than his most wonderful most glorious all-powerful supreme leader.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/06/00/95/0600951d2127f5219542a1674713253e.jpg

It's very similar cult following of almost religious proportions similar to a KB conspiracy poster and the discredited doctor wakefraurd
Or the Geet Coffee powered engine, they will never admit the flaws in their leader whether it is a convicted fraudster with a clear vested interest.
Or a certified looney bin nutcase who thinks an alien angel named Mrs Cunninham gave him the secret to an engine that runs on water or coffee.

https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/10/Screen-Shot-2020-10-07-at-12.12.13-pm.png

TheDemonLord

13th October 2020, 07:46

I gave up on TDL when he claimed the nazis were left wing.

All the Fascists were former Marxists, Nazi itself stands for National Socialists, Stalin and Hitler were allies initially.

But here's the kicker - remember the Grievance studies hoax? Well, they submitted a paper, for a radically left-wing discipline of Mein Kampf - and all they did was replace the words 'Jew' with the words "Straight White Male" - the peer reviewers loved it.

That should be the hint that (and here is what I actually said) they aren't as right-wing as you might believe.

pritch

13th October 2020, 08:13

Nazi itself stands for National Socialists, .

This brief quote shows how little you understand. You need to read some history, instaed of whatever it is that you have been reading.

The Nazis were really good at propoganda, their name was chosen to appeal to both right and left, to appeal to the maximum number of voters. They were never socialists. That appears to be a relatively recent claim by people who don't know the history but are just about intellectually capable if reading the word "socialist".

TheDemonLord

13th October 2020, 08:19

As nice as your referral is, I agreed with that policy list, sure. However, Trump barely follows it, shit man he cannot even get a replacement out for Obama care and he has had 4 years!
I've barely seen you critique Trump, however defending him is an entirely different matter.

That's cause usually the discussion on Trump is someone says something I disagree with or I post something I agree with and the discussion flows from there.

I've said his speech is clumsy and not very statesmanlike, I've said that comparing his debate with Biden vs Pence and Harris, that it was nice to see a proper debate with Pence and Harris. I've routinely said that there is plenty to not like fairly and reasonably criticise about Trump.

And I see a lot of that Criticism from right-leaning sources who otherwise support the President - they regularly point to when he's doing something they believe to be wrong or stupid.

Annnnd here we are back at your leftie communists are taking over rhetoric.
How many right wingers been killed by the lefties in the riots? How many have died from the Trump administrations shit poor handling of the pandemic. Open your eyes and focus on the real tragedy playing out - for Gods sake man!

That's a false comparison, the issue is not that people have died per se, it's that people were targetted and killed specifically for their political beliefs - so far the official estimate is 2 - that is where we have confirmation that they were killed because they supported Trump.

I've granted you that I think the Federal response for Covid was weak, but to compare deaths from a disease to targeted political assassinations is not on the same ball park.

coming back to my leftie Communist points - what is the level of proof that you would accept, for my claim that there are a number of radically left-wing groups, that have been radicalised by the University grievance studies system and are explicitly intent on a Communist revolution.

Name your standard of Proof.

If I can meet it, then you have to concede that there is at least a Kernel of truth to what I say
If I can't meet it (and the expectation would be that we would both be honest on each way), then I won't bring it up again

Deal?

So you don't think that the with the presidents words are so shit, so unreliable that it simply should not be followed - and nay, anyone that does - it's their problem? Shhheeeit man, your Republican party are death bringers, but woot woot they are showing up the lefties true colours!!!

That applies to everyone - Hell, I read Guardian articles on a semi-regular basis even though I disagree with 90% of what's in them, simply to make sure I'm not getting all my info from a single source. You could replace Trump in that statement with any public figure and the point would still stand.

Other than stating I alone can choose to like or not like an answer to a question I asked, the main point, is you gone done fucked up bro!!! You were not in New Zealand where the Government did a largely good job of containing the virus, you attended a Trump rally for fun! Now some of your relatives are on deaths door and it is your fault you selfish bastard. You gone done got carried away having fun and left your brain out of the equation!

What happened in NZ, happened in spite of the Government, not because - our relative isolation, relatively spread out communities etc. are what saved us - case in point - Community cases being caused by failures in the Managed Isolation procedures.

But as for the Rally, let's say I went to a Trump rally - would I then immediately visit every single one of my Elderly relatives? You make many assumptions for which my initial statement does not stretch to.

As I said, it's about Managing Risk. My immediate Family falls well outside the risk area for the disease - so I would have no qualms about going. My Grandparents-in-law on the other hand, being elderly and with pre-existing conditions - I wouldn't be visiting them or if I did, I'd be taking some precautions that are applicable to that situation

The fact you felt to mention you have not held any parties and done your part kinda pisses all over your cavalier statement that you would attend one of Trumps super spreader events. Snapped bro!

By that logic, everyone that went grocery shopping is also guilty - so why are they exempt?

- but we have to get Food!

They could order online and get contact-less delivery - Yes, I have a Cavalier attitude - There are still ways to manage the Risk. It's no different than choosing to Ride a Motorbike vs a car and Choosing the ride a Bike with the Mk1 Safety Sandal vs a proper set of Motorcycle Boots.

No one or entity lies as much as Trump - not even close! Wakey, wakey.

I disagree - but then we've covered this - if you take every Trump statement as 100% literal truth, then sure - he lies a lot. However I don't take everything he says as 100% literal truth - firstly because as a Native English Speaker, I understand various linguistic devices, secondly I know he's a New Yorker - who happen to have a particular way of speaking that includes a lot of superlatives (Best, Biggest, Greatest etc.)

I removed a whole load of your evil commie diatribe to save space, but I note again, you say next to nothing about the republicans criminally negligent handling of covid, which has killed thousands of percent more than the rioters you keep bleating about.

"Yes comrade, I have looted the store, stolen a tv and set the place on fire - we are so much closer now to turning the USA into a communist state!" Give me a fuckin break man :brick:

I've already addressed my position on the handling of Covid - but sure, it starts with a bit of looting, then a bit of Arson, Attempts at creating Communes and we've now had 2 summary executions, Do you know what the next step is? It makes the Covid death-toll look like a drop in the ocean.

What a bunch of waffely bullshit, I never suggested any of the above. You seem keen to point out the handful of right wingers deaths at the not peaceful protests (that are by far outweighed by peaceful protests, you just don't see those reported eh).

Sure, some were Peaceful, but despite the Media's attempt to lie about it (y'know, standing in front of Burning building, trying to tell us it's peaceful), some were not. Now, had the reporting been honest about the Protests/Riots - I might be a little more sympathetic, but we saw the usual suspects (CNN, MSNBC, The BBC) running interference and trotting out Apologia for it.

How many buildings did the NZ Firearms community burn down when our rights were summarily stripped from us? It's not like I'm holding them to an unreasonable standard or a different standard - it's the same for every group that has a political grievance. You want to protest?

Go Ahead, it is your right, even if it's something I vehemently oppose. The moment you turn Violent - you're done.

For the second part

I take a different view between people dieing from a Virus (which is bad, and I've addressed this), that is impersonal and someone deliberately killing another over their Political beliefs.

You could add in any other type of unintended death you like - Automobile accidents, Heart Disease, Workplace accidents - I still take targeted political assassinations as more serious.

TheDemonLord

13th October 2020, 08:29

This brief quote shows how little you understand. You need to read some history, instaed of whatever it is that you have been reading.

The Nazis were really good at propoganda, their name was chosen to appeal to both right and left, to appeal to the maximum number of voters. They were never socialists. That appears to be a relatively recent claim by people who don't know the history but are just about intellectually capable if reading the word "socialist".

Last time you raised this, I addressed it - by pointing out that all of them were former Marxists and Socialists.

They undertook a number of public works and public policies, that is in-line with the socialist viewpoint.
They also hated the Jews - which Marx was a big advocate for (Pogroms, anyone?), In fact Hitler praised Stalin for the Purging of 'jewish influence' on the Communist Party
Hitler wasn't a great fan of unregulated capitalism or profit, instead preferring to accept private ownership and enterprise so long as it benefited the state

It seems like you need to read some more history.

sugilite

13th October 2020, 10:22

TheDemonLord

13th October 2020, 10:39

Demonlord, if I get time to address your points I will. In the mean time if you manage to pull up the maga hat that has slipped over your eyes, look at the article below. Trump 100% fits every criteria with examples. It's indisputable to people with even a modicum of logic. Try to read it without being on Trumps sugar hit left triggering drug that you OD on regularly.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/300130033/theres-one-headline-about-donald-trump-that-has-not-been-printed-but-makes-the-most-sense-of-all

I read it - I'm going to focus on a single line that I will use to sum up the Article:

Individuals with dangerous personalities have risen to the highest ranks of power throughout modern history – from Nixon to Mao

I'm no fan of Nixon - however The author's choice to put him in the same league as Mao is evidence enough that the writers either are ignorant or they are willfully deceptive. The rest of the article is the classic Garden variety TDS - and you know how rarely I use that phrase, because I find it loathsome.

sugilite

13th October 2020, 11:21

I read it - I'm going to focus on a single line that I will use to sum up the Article:
That is not like you to cherry pick one aspect :innocent:

I'm no fan of Nixon - however The author's choice to put him in the same league as Mao is evidence enough that the writers either are ignorant or they are willfully deceptive. The rest of the article is the classic Garden variety TDS - and you know how rarely I use that phrase, because I find it loathsome.
What Trump example do you disagree with or ascertain never happened?

TheDemonLord

13th October 2020, 11:42

That is not like you to cherry pick one aspect :innocent:

True - but it wasn't in respect to Trump, so I couldn't have been accused of rose-tinted glasses.

What Trump example do you disagree with or ascertain never happened?

The over-arching theme of the Article is probably the easiest:

"Trump has character flaws/mental conditions/personality traits (whatever you want to call them) and this makes him dangerous, not just to the US, but to the world"

Now, I disagree with the assessment - first and foremost if the people making the claim are qualified to make such a judgement, to do so without interviewing him personally, in a clinical setting I think is reprehensible and unprofessional.

But let's put that aside for a moment, because I want to compare this claim to the real-world data:

He's started no new wars
He's had 2 instances that are historic moments for world peace
He appears to have defeated ISIS
He's opted not to use Lethal Options on occassion - such as the 2019 Iranian Drone incident

Those facts do not stack with the claim that he's a Bully and a danger to the world. The first one alone puts him above all the presidents in my Living memory, I'll grant you every disagreement about the other 3 that you want to raise (as there's a fair amount of opinion involved there) - I cannot from a purely logical point of view reconcile the claim in the article with the real world events.

From there one might raise a number of counterpoints, along the lines of 'this is due to the process of Bureaucracy limiting his power' or some other point - but then we would have to analyze that claim from the same perspective - would a Narcissistic Bully tolerate that? The answer by their own definition is unequivocally 'No'.