Topic: 2020 Democrats (Read 12657 times)

A lot happens in a thread when you don't post for  awhile.
I didn't watch all of either conventions, they were both cringeworthy.
The Biden/Trump debates were really hard to sit through and I only watched highlights of the VPs
It looks like Andrew Yang is going to stay in the political arena and I hope that he keeps the evolving economy on his list of topics.







In the age of cell phones there are copious amounts of visuals to support that "narrative".
In the past the things we can now see with our own eyes would have been unbelievable, it would have been almost understandable for someone who had not experienced it to deny it occurs.

Police brutality exists and it's unacceptable, racial biases exist and it's undeniable: the first step is admitting you have a problem.

Oversimplification of complex issues has become a systemic problem in 2 party democracies.

No, PARROTS. After all, most of them don't know what they are talking about. They simply say what a few leaders have thought up. And they can't even determine if the leaders are right or wrong!

You mean Patriots?

Well, communists also started out by "fighting for justice" and robbing shops.

^^^ Well, you placed it in the correct thread. It's okay if you say Democrat Communists.

Communists got me on twitter. I'm banned for liking Trump's tweets.

Reminds me of a fictional story, The Difference Engine, by Sterling/Gibson, in which a totalitarian regime uses punched card computers to micro manage all peoples' lives in 19th century Britain. But that's still a hundred years in the future from the timeframes of "the founders."

IIRC there was no such thing as "police" at the time of the founders. The Texas Rangers date from around 1840-1850, also.

Alright that's fair then.

I thought you were disagreeing with my whole thing, which didn't make any sense. Ya know, given the fact that like there'd be NO WAY the founders would support the bureaucratic nightmare that is today's government. Then again, their entire economy wasn't as complex as ours is now.

Hamiliton would've liked the massive expansion of executive power over the years, not all of them though. We've literally let Congress continue to cede power to the executive which is such a shitty way of doing things. Fuck government.

Police as we know them really didn't exist in the late 1700s, so I'm a bit at a loss to know how to respond. "Soldier" was much more what existed, that did some things similar to "policing."

That is why I would disagree on that point.

they wouldn't like to hear stories about how the government is pretty much like a nanny state now.
There is no reason that we should be in a county where the government is involved in pretty much every facet of our lives. Like literally, why are people being killed financially from the regulatory state that continue. Why are there bureaucrats in Washington that know nothing about you, killing your business?

Pretty much agree on this dimension.

I mean yeah the founders are dead, but I think it's fair to say that they wouldn't like to hear stories about how the government is pretty much like a nanny state now.

There is no reason that we should be in a county where the government is involved in pretty much every facet of our lives. Like literally, why are people being killed financially from the regulatory state that continue. Why are there bureaucrats in Washington that know nothing about you, killing your business?

CBP controlling WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS?

Militarized police.

Yeah none of these things are what the founders would have wanted.

Sez who, the founders wouldn't have thought that was proper?

Franklin is reported to have responded to the question of what have the people been given:  "A republic sir...if you can keep it."  If true, it indicates a incredulity on his part that the work product would be durable.  A well founded doubt to be sure.  Whatever Franklin was, he weren't no fool.

I suspect that most of cor of 'the founders' (with the notable exception of Hamilton) would have considered their work dead by the events of 1871.  The 'bitter clingers' might have held on until the Federal Reserve act of 1913...then followed their friends to The Philippines or some such place.

I think Twitchys response wasn't stating that those things that he does with his family are the ONLY reason for the 2nd amendment. He was responding to your claim, which stated the following:


So he was saying that he has operated firearms and is familiar with them. Up to you to believe if he's being honest or anything along those lines, but he was just responding to that. But yes the 2nd amendment is about government tyranny, as the founders were VERY VERY VERY careful to ensure that our rights would be protected and we wouldn't live under a King. But eh, look where executive power is at this point....!

Executive power was not be taking a jab at Trump by the way. That's a general note on executive power.

The 2nd amendment isn't about skeet, 4-H trap, or shooting with your Dad.

It's about the right of a public to be sufficiently armed to overthrow a tyrannical government, if and when that need arises. This implies weapons of certain types.

As for the wording of the 2nd amendment and other parts of the document being vague, maybe that's a feature not a bug.

The founders would've probably been okay with regular people having military weapons. But me personally, eh, no.

I get that argument though. As the founders WOULD'VE NEVER allowed for us to live in the current state that we live in. ICE operating near the borders pulling over private citizens everyday? That's a no. Police officers shouldn't have military grade equipment at their disposale. Shit imagine you went even further and talked about taxes, NSA, regulations and so on? The founders would be PISSED.

Passing on regulatory power to bureaucrats in Washington wouldn't make the founders happy as well. Then again though, did they imagine to see this sort of change within 250 years?

I grew up with guns, was in the 4-H trap and skeet league in High School and still go shooting with my Dad and Uncle every time I visit.

There are rational, valid arguments on both sides of the gun debate.  There are also irrational, invalid arguments on both sides of the gun debate.  Like the one you just made, for example.

Time after time, pro-gun advocates demolish arguments of anti-gun. The reason is quite curious.

As in this thread, anti-gun people are always quite ignorant of the very subject they pontificate on. They have never handled the pistols, hunting or military rifles, or antique guns of which they profess knowledge.

Actually knowing and having experience does matter.

A historical analysis of things seems to indicate that 'the founders' were shooting for a situation where the common people had relative parity with police powers wielded by the state.  I would say that it is clear why that would be a design goal.  Namely, it puts a limit on the flexibility that the political leadership feels at liberty to wield, and history has show time and time again that that is of benefit for a social fabric.

So, it seems likely that were 'the founders' around today, they would be OK with the common folk having MRAP vehicles and grenade launchers and so forth if they want them.  More likely, they would not be OK with the police having them, or the military operating within the borders utilizing such equipment.

It must be said that 'the founders' of the U.S. were fairly eccentric compared to their counterparts who formed other nations.  I think in a good way, and I think that they were unusually wise, but that's a values judgement on my part...and I'm a gen-x'er.  The educational system was adjusted during the formative years of my cohort to make it not so common to have the peeps thinking as I do.  Now it is much more common for the peeps to instinctively support the centralized power of the state (and soon the entire globe.)  No real mystery about how or why that is.

2nd amendment is one of those things that are VERY tough to debate about. You're totally right on it being a debate where both sides have some pretty good points. Though I do think the right has some of the better points when it comes to constitutionality and that sort of thing.

When people stay stuff like - Well the founders never could've known what we were going to produce 250 years later. Yeah that's true, but they also never knew much of what anything would translate to. 250 years later freedom of speech is allowed online as well. Freedom of assembly is protected in our age of terrorism and such. Religion is still heavily protected, even after the changes we've seen over the centuries.

I don't think the founders using different weapons then us now is not a reason to ban particular weapons like 'assault rifles' (I put these in quotes cause ya know, that's a debated term) The guns the founders used were the most deadly of their time. I personally draw the line at automatic, not sure why that's needed, but regular rifles are fine to me.

As an investment, machine guns really hold their value. As a novelty item to own, they are quite interesting. I could go for a 1920s Thompson machine gun, and there are also some 22LR machine guns that are interesting, but the latter would require careful cleaning after each use.

Correcting errors:

Machine guns ARE LEGAL to own in the USA. You must pay a 200 USD$ fee for a stamp each year.

Also an error. "Useful life." Barring corrosion and with decent care, a firearm can easily last for hundreds of years, not decades. If engineering drawings are available of the parts, they are quite easy to make.

Utility: The M16 was fielded with three settings: Single shot, three round burst, and full auto. The reason for the 3 round burst was to keep the soldier from doing the "spray and pray," using his ammo up, and then getting killed. Full auto might be of use to keep an enemy from advancing, but it isn't likely to hit anything. A machine gun with a couple of 500 round cases is a different matter entirely, than a handheld rifle with seven 30 round magazines.

So the MILITARY usefulness of full auto is not 100% for such things as handheld rifles.
[Edit] The M16A2 currently issued to US troops does not have a fully auto mode of fire, just the 1 shot and 3 shot options.

That line exists, and the law and regulation is pretty good just as is.

Different sections of the regs, like section 8 handle "explosive devices." Lot of people work in areas that require approval under these sections, no big deal.

No need for a far out argument of bio/chem/nuke to make your point. Various regulations do cover all these matters currently.