View Full Version : Third and final Debate
AZ Jim
10-19-2016, 05:45 PM
Will Trump stay on his side of the stage or will he pace around and lurk like a fucking bully? Will he interrupt? Will he whine? He has the advantage of FOX's Chris Wallace who is biased in his favor.
If trump starts the stalking routine again, I think they should play the theme from JAWS!
decedent
10-19-2016, 06:09 PM
Attacking Hillary on a personal level didn't work last time. If Trump doesn't know politics and can't attack Hillary, what does he have left? He knows a few names, places and agreements but barely enough to fill 10 minutes -- 30 if he uses his tremendous adjectives.
suds00
10-19-2016, 06:10 PM
thank goodness this is the last one.
decedent
10-19-2016, 06:14 PM
Will Trump stay on his side of the stage or will he pace around and lurk like a $#@!ing bully? Will he interrupt? Will he whine? He has the advantage of FOX's Chris Wallace who is biased in his favor.
If trump starts the stalking routine again, I think they should play the theme from JAWS!
Wallace said it's not his job to fact check. Trump may bury the needle on the lie-meter tonight.
I wonder if he'll cool it with the talk about rigging or Bill. He knows he'll lose the election so he may just use tonight as a soapbox.
Common Sense
10-19-2016, 06:16 PM
I expect him to have Monica Lewinski in the crowd, interrupt constantly, say wrong a lot, threaten Clinton and eventually walk off the stage because everything is "rigged".
exploited
10-19-2016, 06:33 PM
I'm not sure what he will do, he is a very unpredictable man.
However, in my opinion, he ought to really focus on attacking Clinton, personally and professionally. I've said this time and time again: he must avoid policy at all costs. The reason is simple - those who are going to vote for him, are going to vote for him. Period. Those who are going to vote for Clinton, are going to vote for Clinton. Again, period. Those who are truly undecided, however, are not going to be swayed by Trump on policy, largely because he is a blathering moron who has literally no idea what he is talking about on any given subject. What they can relate to is a dislike of Hillary Clinton, a feeling that she is a hypocrite, a liar, a criminal, or worse.
He needs to focus on one-liners and zingers, and he needs to be quick on his feet issuing come-backs. But at all costs, he must avoid speaking about policy.
decedent
10-19-2016, 06:41 PM
He needs to focus on one-liners and zingers, and he needs to be quick on his feet issuing come-backs. But at all costs, he must avoid speaking about policy.
He's apparently bringing Obama's half brother, a Benghazi victim's mother, and James O'Keefe. It seems he's going to take the low road again.
Since O'Keefe will be there, we'll probably hear a lot about Creamer and other unverified propaganda from his Veritas video.
exploited
10-19-2016, 06:42 PM
He's apparently bringing Obama's half brother, a Benghazi victim's mother, and James O'Keefe. It seems he's going to take the low road again.
Since O'Keefe will be there, we'll probably hear a lot about Creamer and other unverified propaganda from his Veritas video.
That is all he can do. That is all that is left.
Green Arrow
10-19-2016, 09:47 PM
I think this is the first time in US history that two children have run for president.
Cthulhu
10-19-2016, 10:56 PM
I think this is the first time in US history that two children have run for president.
Eggplant vs cucumber.
A fearsome duel.
Fear profits a man nothing.
Green Arrow
10-19-2016, 11:15 PM
Eggplant vs cucumber.
A fearsome duel.
Fear profits a man nothing.
I enjoy cucumbers. Let's say eggplant vs. kale.
TrueBlue
10-19-2016, 11:23 PM
It is clear from multiple sources that Hillary Clinton WON tonight's final debate over Donald Trump!
Did everyone notice that when speaking on the topic of drugs Trump started sniffing again and continued.
It was brought out by Hillary that the Russians are engaged in espionage then the information is given to WikiLeaks.
Hillary Clinton brought out the fact that Donald Trump will add 20 TRILLION Dollars to the national debt.
Trump continues to Speak BAD about the United States! And said that no one can believe that our leadership is stupid. Perhaps it's because it isn't stupid, Don!
Hillary Clinton was Very Strong tonight! Trump was on the defensive for most of the night and was constantly sweating and drinking water.
Hillary Clinton looked Stunning in her white suit!
After the debate, Republican Meg Whitman hugged Hillary Clinton!
Matthew Dowd, political commentator, said he was stunned by Trump's response about the election results when he said he could, in essence, not accept those results.
Mike Pence looked defeated as he walked through the crowd after the debate.
As for "Voter Fraud" it was brought out by the commentators that after over 30,000,000 votes only 31 cases were known.
Donald Trump did not deliver the knock-out blow he badly needed in tonight's final and third presidential debate.
Lindsey Graham, Republican, would blame Trump and his words if he loses.
Matthew Dowd proclaimed that HILLARY CLINTON WON THE DEBATE and that it was her BEST of all 3! I concur with that.
Green Arrow
10-19-2016, 11:24 PM
Who won this debate...who cares? America lost.
Bethere
10-19-2016, 11:47 PM
Who won this debate...who cares? America lost.
On the contrary, America dodged the fascist Trump. It was one of America's finest hours.
Amen.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 12:08 AM
I understand that Clinton displayed her usual contempt for the Constitution.
Only someone who really hates this country could support Clinton.
Bethere
10-20-2016, 12:09 AM
I understand that Clinton displayed her usual contempt for the Constitution.
Only someone who really hates this country could support Clinton.
Lol.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 12:12 AM
Lol.
Do you deny that Clinton displayed her ignorance of and contempt for the Constitution?
Bethere
10-20-2016, 12:13 AM
Do you deny that Clinton displayed her ignorance of and contempt for the Constitution?
Yes. I deny your premise.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 12:17 AM
Yes. I deny your premise.
Okay, what did she say about the Second Amendment?
What did Trump say about the Constitution?
Which one of them displayed a greater knowledge of and respect for the supreme law of the land?
Bethere
10-20-2016, 12:38 AM
Okay, what did she say about the Second Amendment?
What did Trump say about the Constitution?
Which one of them displayed a greater knowledge of and respect for the supreme law of the land?
She said that she supports the second amendment.
Hillary, the lawyer, knows much more about con law than the hapless Drumpf.
Crepitus
10-20-2016, 01:28 AM
I understand that Clinton displayed her usual contempt for the Constitution.
Only someone who really hates this country could support Clinton.
I watched most of the debate, don't recall anyone displaying and contempt for.the constitution. I could be wrong though, Trump displayed contempt for a lot of different stuff.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 02:26 AM
I watched most of the debate, don't recall anyone displaying and contempt for.the constitution. I could be wrong though, Trump displayed contempt for a lot of different stuff.
Trump actually expressed a surprising understanding of the Constitution. What did Clinton say about the Second Amendment?
Cletus
10-20-2016, 02:30 AM
She said that she supports the second amendment.
Did she? What did she say about Heller?
Hillary, the lawyer, knows much more about con law than the hapless Drumpf.
"Con" law, perhaps. Constitutional law, next to nothing. Clinton views the Constitution as something that means whatever the majority of the moment wants it to mean. She made that clear during the debate.
Bethere
10-20-2016, 03:14 AM
Did she? What did she say about Heller?
"Con" law, perhaps. Constitutional law, next to nothing. Clinton views the Constitution as something that means whatever the majority of the moment wants it to mean. She made that clear during the debate.
She said she supported an individual's right to bear, but also thought it was a bad ruling because it was a reasonable regulation.
She noted that it was about safety regulations to protect children from the guns stored in their homes.
She said that the Heller ruling allows for regulations that are reasonable and that she agrees.
So do I, as I have read that ruling several times.
I would overturn Heller, make it clear there is no right for individuals to bear arms, and then require the owner to buy a license and liability insurance or turn in their guns.
Stare decisis be damned.
But that's me, not Hillary.
Trump never would have given that kind of detail. You can be sure he's never read the case.
I can't believe you watched the same exchange I saw because everything I heard was reasonable and legally sound.
Hillary is very very good. That you can't find it in you to admit it says a lot about you.
Beevee
10-20-2016, 03:46 AM
Well, I don't think you can doubt that all those Republican supporters who wanted change in the USA from their belief that the last eight years have been a waste, have failed to change the next eight years and will continue to get more of the same.
That's something to ruminate over because when they had the chance to choose, from a plethora of candidates with a variety of plans for America's future - they chose Trump.
Ethereal
10-20-2016, 03:46 AM
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are coming after the second amendment, make no mistake about it.
Just look at what they do on the local level when they have no meaningful political opposition: They ban guns.
They will do the same thing on the state and national levels if given half the chance.
Of course, they will lie and say that is not their intention, but what sort of imbecile would actually believe them at this point?
Bethere
10-20-2016, 03:59 AM
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are coming after the second amendment, make no mistake about it.
Just look at what they do on the local level when they have no meaningful political opposition: They ban guns.
They will do the same thing on the state and national levels if given half the chance.
Of course, they will lie and say that is not their intention, but what sort of imbecile would actually believe them at this point?
In four years when it hasn't happened you will pretend that you never said that it would.
Bethere
10-20-2016, 04:03 AM
Well, I don't think you can doubt that all those Republican supporters who wanted change in the USA from their belief that the last eight years have been a waste, have failed to change the next eight years and will continue to get more of the same.
That's something to ruminate over because when they had the chance to choose, from a plethora of candidates with a variety of plans for America's future - they chose Trump.
They looked at 17 other candidates, an18 month process.
And they picked this loser trump guy hands down.
By December they'll be saying that they lose all of the time because they never pick a true conservative.
Peter1469
10-20-2016, 07:10 AM
On the contrary, America dodged the fascist Trump. It was one of America's finest hours.
Amen.
You are vastly more fascistic than Trump is.
Crepitus
10-20-2016, 07:43 AM
Trump actually expressed a surprising understanding of the Constitution. What did Clinton say about the Second Amendment?
Why don't you tell me Cletus, 'cause all I remember is her saying she supports the second amendment.
Trump barely understands flush toilets, much less the constitution.
Cigar
10-20-2016, 08:13 AM
Trump's closing: "Vote for her, and you get four more years of Obama!"
55% of the population: YES!!!! :laugh:
Chris
10-20-2016, 08:41 AM
Are we discussing debate.
Trump came on strong, should've won, but weakened toward the end.
Trump and Clinton both use mechanical metaphors for the economy that are outdated and wrong.
One thing I noticed. Trump and Clinton both fill old roles of male and female. Trump is aggressive, interrupting, trying to control things, while Clinton seems seems to wait her turn. In general, easy to nitpick that. But I think it funny when so much of the election is turning on gender roles. I'd thus be more sympathetic toward Clinton in assessing this debate if they weren't both two-faced and acting, putting on public faces.
Cigar
10-20-2016, 08:48 AM
I call it a Draw ...
Trump needed a Knockout! ... it didn't happen.
Clinton needed to look Presidential! ... she succeeded.
No one learned anything knew and how could they?
Because we already know everything we need to know about these two individuals.
I if you're on the fence looking for knowledge about these two candidate, you're not going to get anything new between now and November 8th.
nathanbforrest45
10-20-2016, 08:52 AM
She said she supported an individual's right to bear, but also thought it was a bad ruling because it was a reasonable regulation.
She noted that it was about safety regulations to protect children from the guns stored in their homes.
She said that the Heller ruling allows for regulations that are reasonable and that she agrees.
So do I, as I have read that ruling several times.
I would overturn Heller, make it clear there is no right for individuals to bear arms, and then require the owner to buy a license and liability insurance or turn in their guns.
Stare decisis be damned.
But that's me, not Hillary.
Trump never would have given that kind of detail. You can be sure he's never read the case.
I can't believe you watched the same exchange I saw because everything I heard was reasonable and legally sound.
Hillary is very very good. That you can't find it in you to admit it says a lot about you.
So, you don't believe in the Second Amendment? Well, now we know.
Peter1469
10-20-2016, 08:53 AM
I call it a Draw ...
Trump needed a Knockout! ... it didn't happen.
Clinton needed to look Presidential! ... she succeeded.
No one learned anything knew and how could they?
Because we already know everything we need to know about these two individuals.
I if you're on the fence looking for knowledge about these two candidate, you're not going to get anything new between now and November 8th.
I agree about Trump.
I disagree about Hillary. She looked weak at times.
Newpublius
10-20-2016, 08:55 AM
I call it a Draw ...
Trump needed a Knockout! ... it didn't happen.
Clinton needed to look Presidential! ... she succeeded.
No one learned anything knew and how could they?
Because we already know everything we need to know about these two individuals.
I if you're on the fence looking for knowledge about these two candidate, you're not going to get anything new between now and November 8th.
We'll see how the polls move in the coming week, but vast majority have made up there minds by now and I really don't see debates as being anything more than an NFL-esque event of arguing points on a glibly superficial manner.
nathanbforrest45
10-20-2016, 08:59 AM
Trump's closing: "Vote for her, and you get four more years of Obama!
55% of the population: YES!!!! :laugh:
YES, More free sh!t we can get the "rich" to pay for.
Chris
10-20-2016, 08:59 AM
I agree about Trump.
I disagree about Hillary. She looked weak at times.
That's sort of what I was getting at, he looked strong, she weak. But it's an act to gain sympathy. It's ironic for someone breaking glass ceilings.
Cigar
10-20-2016, 09:02 AM
I agree about Trump.
I disagree about Hillary. She looked weak at times.
Yep ... Hillary Clinton and President Obama don't exhibit bluster, brash and bravado.
Showmen do ... leaders don't.
Chris
10-20-2016, 09:05 AM
Yep ... Hillary Clinton and President Obama don't exhibit bluster, brash and bravado.
Showmen do ... leaders don't.
Yes, meek and mild as a mouse is an important leadership quality.
Peter1469
10-20-2016, 09:05 AM
Yep ... Hillary Clinton and President Obama don't exhibit bluster, brash and bravado.
Showmen do ... leaders don't.
Real leaders don't buckle. And if they do, their deputy takes over.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F9502-presscdn-0-95.pagely.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F09%2Fhillary-sick.jpeg&f=1
Cigar
10-20-2016, 09:07 AM
That's sort of what I was getting at, he looked strong, she weak. But it's an act to gain sympathy. It's ironic for someone breaking glass ceilings.
Notice how calm and cool President Obama is, when he's called a Liar in the Congressional chambers?
Notice how calm and cool President Obama is, when he's called every name in the book for the last 8 years?
Notice how calm and cool President Obama is, the night Osama was Killed?
Some people need to "LOOK" Strong, while other just to the work of Strong Individuals.
Some people don't know the different, because they are easily fooled by Looks, rather than substance.
We all know Donald Trump places Looks over anything else.
Cigar
10-20-2016, 09:08 AM
Real leaders don't buckle. And if they do, their deputy takes over.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F9502-presscdn-0-95.pagely.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F09%2Fhillary-sick.jpeg&f=1
Let's see what Donald J Trump "Looks" like on Wednesday November 9th :wink:
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 09:09 AM
I agree about Trump.
I disagree about Hillary. She looked weak at times.
She supports open borders. She is a danger to national security. She supports increased debt. She is a danger to everyone's economic security. She supports government taking more control over our lives.
However, we are going to be stuck with her. Better get used to the idea now.
Peter1469
10-20-2016, 09:09 AM
Who cares what he looks like?
Who cares what he looks like?
you seem pretty concerned with how hillary looks
there's a word for that
nic34
10-20-2016, 09:11 AM
YES, More free sh!t we can get the "rich" to pay for.
Yes and don't forget it.
Now maybe we can get sherruf Joe to check on her birth certificate?
Peter1469
10-20-2016, 09:11 AM
you seem pretty concerned with how hillary looks
there's a word for that
I could care less how she looks. I said sick leaders are typically replaced.
I could care less how she looks. I said sick leaders are typically replaced.
i totally believe you, pete.
honest
nic34
10-20-2016, 09:15 AM
She supports open borders. She is a danger to national security. She supports increased debt. She is a danger to everyone's economic security. She supports government taking more control over our lives.
However, we are going to be stuck with her. Better get used to the idea now.
I guess you didn't listen to all of her answer, and pick out just what you like, like the rest of the trumpkins...
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
At the debate, Clinton replied that her sentence from the speech related to energy.
"I was talking about energy. You know, we trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined," she said. "And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders. I think that will be great benefit to us."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-wants-have-open-/
The Xl
10-20-2016, 09:15 AM
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are coming after the second amendment, make no mistake about it.
Just look at what they do on the local level when they have no meaningful political opposition: They ban guns.
They will do the same thing on the state and national levels if given half the chance.
Of course, they will lie and say that is not their intention, but what sort of imbecile would actually believe them at this point?
Clinton openly wants to go after people who make lawful gun sales, and wikileaks has shown that she's going to ignore the constitution and even circumvent Congress by using executive orders to get the "gun control" she wants. Of course she's coming for the second amendment, its out in the open.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 09:26 AM
Clinton openly wants to go after people who make lawful gun sales, and wikileaks has shown that she's going to ignore the constitution and even circumvent Congress by using executive orders to get the "gun control" she wants. Of course she's coming for the second amendment, its out in the open.
Yeah, I remember all the same hysteria coming from the right when Obama was elected. It's a little hard to take seriously anymore.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 09:27 AM
I guess you didn't listen to all of her answer, and pick out just what you like, like the rest of the trumpkins...
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
At the debate, Clinton replied that her sentence from the speech related to energy.
"I was talking about energy. You know, we trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined," she said. "And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders. I think that will be great benefit to us."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-wants-have-open-/
She supports open borders. Period. She has stated so in communications she tried to keep secret. Now she's trying to spin that.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 09:28 AM
Trump illustrated that he not only doesn't have the skills to be president, but he also doesn't have the temperament.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 09:29 AM
She supports open borders. Period. She has stated so in communications she tried to keep secret. Now she's trying to spin that.
Bullshit...
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 09:29 AM
Clinton openly wants to go after people who make lawful gun sales, and wikileaks has shown that she's going to ignore the constitution and even circumvent Congress by using executive orders to get the "gun control" she wants. Of course she's coming for the second amendment, its out in the open.
Yeah, I remember all the same hysteria coming from the right when Obama was elected. It's a little hard to take seriously anymore.
And if the left gains full control of government they will attempt to basically nullify the second amendment. I don't see why liberals are so reluctant to admit this.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 09:30 AM
I guess you're all doomed now.
If we believe some Trump supporters, Clinton will not only open the borders and destroy America, she'll also take away your guns and start WW3.
Do they even believe their own bullshit?
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 09:31 AM
And if the left gains full control of government they will attempt to basically nullify the second amendment. I don't see why liberals are so reluctant to admit this.
Probably because it's not true.
The Xl
10-20-2016, 09:31 AM
Yeah, I remember all the same hysteria coming from the right when Obama was elected. It's a little hard to take seriously anymore.
All I can do is make deductions based on her words and actions. That's what she's shown.
As much as I dislike Obama, he's relatively tame comparatively, especially when it comes to guns and foreign policy.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 09:32 AM
Trump's closing: "Vote for her, and you get four more years of Obama!"
55% of the population: YES!!!! :laugh:
Actually that's not quite right. A strong majority across the nation believes that Obama has sent us on the wrong course.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 09:37 AM
All I can do is make deductions based on her words and actions. That's what she's shown.
As much as I dislike Obama, he's relatively tame comparatively, especially when it comes to guns and foreign policy.
The reality is that Clinton has a lot in common with him policy wise. Democrats also have a variety of views on the 2nd amendment. There will be executive action to destroy the 2nd.
When people claim she's going to destroy the 2nd, it's a little hard to take seriously.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 09:39 AM
All I can do is make deductions based on her words and actions. That's what she's shown.
As much as I dislike Obama, he's relatively tame comparatively, especially when it comes to guns and foreign policy.
He tried to go after second amendment issues early, but found out that the majority across the country doesn't dpsupport that.
They are going to employ more fear mongering tactics of some kind to frighten people into supporting more restrictions upon our right to own firearms.
Chris
10-20-2016, 09:43 AM
The reality is that Clinton has a lot in common with him policy wise. Democrats also have a variety of views on the 2nd amendment. There will be executive action to destroy the 2nd.
When people claim she's going to destroy the 2nd, it's a little hard to take seriously.
Even though Trump, too, tries to align Obama and Clinton, she aligned only to get her position as Secy State and his support during election. She's a warmonger.
As to the second, "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison
Peter1469
10-20-2016, 09:43 AM
i totally believe you, pete.
honest
I expect Army officers to be honest. Should I expect the same from the Navy?
Crepitus
10-20-2016, 09:44 AM
She said she supported an individual's right to bear, but also thought it was a bad ruling because it was a reasonable regulation.
She noted that it was about safety regulations to protect children from the guns stored in their homes.
She said that the Heller ruling allows for regulations that are reasonable and that she agrees.
So do I, as I have read that ruling several times.
I would overturn Heller, make it clear there is no right for individuals to bear arms, and then require the owner to buy a license and liability insurance or turn in their guns.
Stare decisis be damned.
But that's me, not Hillary.
Trump never would have given that kind of detail. You can be sure he's never read the case.
I can't believe you watched the same exchange I saw because everything I heard was reasonable and legally sound.
Hillary is very very good. That you can't find it in you to admit it says a lot about you.
He suffers from what is called confirmation bias.
Crepitus
10-20-2016, 09:45 AM
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are coming after the second amendment, make no mistake about it.
Just look at what they do on the local level when they have no meaningful political opposition: They ban guns.
They will do the same thing on the state and national levels if given half the chance.
Of course, they will lie and say that is not their intention, but what sort of imbecile would actually believe them at this point?
Just like Obama was coming for.your guns?
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 09:49 AM
Just like Obama was coming for.your guns?
If we were to believe some of these Chicken Little's, Obama was not only going to take away everyone's guns, he was going to get UN soldiers to do so (along with his muslim/communist child soldier army) and those who didn't comply would be sent to FEMA camps.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 09:50 AM
Yeah, I remember all the same hysteria coming from the right when Obama was elected. It's a little hard to take seriously anymore.
Obama's original platform called for draconian gun control measures. It was only after his handlers told him that was a losing issue that he scrubbed it from his campaign web page. It wasn't that he didn't want to disarm Americans. He couldn't pull it off.
Clinton will try to succeed where Obama failed if she is elected.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 09:51 AM
He suffers from what is called confirmation bias.
No, I suffer from having to put up with fools like you and that bethere idiot.
That is all.
Crepitus
10-20-2016, 09:53 AM
And if the left gains full control of government they will attempt to basically nullify the second amendment. I don't see why liberals are so reluctant to admit this.
Well, it could be because it's not true.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 09:54 AM
obama's original platform called for draconian gun control measures. It was only after his handlers told him that was a losing issue that he scrubbed it from his campaign web page. It wasn't that he didn't want to disarm americans. He couldn't pull it off.
Clinton will try to succeed where obama failed if she is elected.
lol....
Cletus
10-20-2016, 09:56 AM
lol....
Are you saying it isn't true, or are you having some kind of spasm?
Crepitus
10-20-2016, 09:58 AM
No, I suffer from having to put up with fools like you and that bethere idiot.
That is all.
Seriously, you should look up confirmation bias. Once yiu can define a problem you're hLfway to solving it.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 10:01 AM
Are you saying it isn't true, or are you having some kind of spasm?
Sorry, I was laughing at your ridiculous assertion.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 10:03 AM
Seriously, you should look up confirmation bias. Once yiu can define a problem you're hLfway to solving it.
I know what it means.
I stand by what I said. You heard what you wanted to hear from Clinton. You conveniently blanked out her comments about "toddlers" and guns with regard to the Heller decision. You have blanked out years of her rhetoric regarding gun control. Bethere is a drooling idiot who is ashamed of both his race and his gender. I expect that from him. YOU should know better.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 10:07 AM
Clinton will certainly pursue some gun control measures just as Obama has. That's not something any Democrat denies. That doesn't equal taking away guns or destroying the 2nd amendment.
That's the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that makes it impossible to discuss the issue.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:08 AM
Yeah, I remember all the same hysteria coming from the right when Obama was elected. It's a little hard to take seriously anymore.
Kind of like the way rational people can't take the climate screamers seriously?
Safety
10-20-2016, 10:09 AM
No, I suffer from having to put up with fools like you and that bethere idiot.
That is all.
I know what it means.
I stand by what I said. You heard what you wanted to hear from Clinton. You conveniently blanked out her comments about "toddlers" and guns with regard to the Heller decision. You have blanked out years of her rhetoric regarding gun control. Bethere is a drooling idiot who is ashamed of both his race and his gender. I expect that from him. YOU should know better.
Please do not call members names
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:11 AM
Clinton will certainly pursue some gun control measures just as Obama has. That's not something any Democrat denies. That doesn't equal taking away guns or destroying the 2nd amendment.
That's the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that makes it impossible to discuss the issue.
what more enforceable gun control measures are needed? Try to answer without providing clichés like "common sense gun legislation".
Safety
10-20-2016, 10:11 AM
Yeah, I remember all the same hysteria coming from the right when Obama was elected. It's a little hard to take seriously anymore.
If they were that concerned, you'd think they would have tried to nominate someone who could actually win.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 10:12 AM
Sorry, I was laughing at your ridiculous assertion.
Did you ever read his original campaign platform?
Of course you didn't. I however, did. When Obama first appeared on the scene, I had never heard of the little shit so I looked at what he had to say. His plans for strict gun control measures were all over his campaign web page. About 2 weeks into the serious campaign, he scrubbed all that. It was obvious what happened. There was even some press commentary about it at the time. His advisors told him that his gun control stance would hurt him in the election, so he just made it go away.
Throughout his presidency, he talked often about the need for stricter gun control measures. It was only because Congress wouldn't play along with him that he was unable to implement any of them.
Clinton has a long record of opposing the individual right to keep and bear arms. She may say one thing in a debate format, but her entire political history says otherwise.
Don't you ever do your due diligence? Do you really accept what Clinton or any other politician for that matter, has to say without verifying it?
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 10:12 AM
Kind of like the way rational people can't take the climate screamers seriously?
Yes, I agree that those who scream about climate change as the end of the world do a disservice about the real threat of climate change.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:15 AM
Tahuyaman
She supports open borders. Period. She has stated so in communications she tried to keep secret. Now she's trying to spin that.
Bull$#@!...
It's the truth. Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that?
You know, it's ok to recognize a position held by a candidate you support, but disagree. You don't need to be so blindly loyal that you ignore the truth.
Bethere
10-20-2016, 10:16 AM
You are vastly more fascistic than Trump is.
Nuh, uh!
YOU are the puppet!
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 10:17 AM
It's the truth. Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that?
You know, it's ok to recognize a position held by a candidate you support, but disagree. You don't need to be so blindly loyal that you ignore the truth.
Sorry, I don't put much stock in out of context snippets from a speech.
Clinton and Obama have had no plans to create open borders. That's hysterical nonsense.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 10:19 AM
I guess we'll wait and see.
I think it's fairly safe to assume the same dire predictions by the right about Obama that didn't come to fruition will be similar to the dire predictions about Clinton. In 8 years we'll probably be having the same discussion about the next Dem running for office.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:19 AM
Well, it could be because it's not true.
Leftists are very dishonest or cowardly. I'm not sure which one it is. Maybe it's both. They are unable to stand behind their own views when they are challenged.
Bethere
10-20-2016, 10:20 AM
So, you don't believe in the Second Amendment? Well, now we know.
Nonsense , I believe in the second amendment!
I just know that you aren't even close to being a well regulated militia
Safety
10-20-2016, 10:21 AM
I guess we'll wait and see.
I think it's fairly safe to assume the same dire predictions by the right about Obama that didn't come to fruition will be similar to the dire predictions about Clinton. In 8 years we'll probably be having the same discussion about the next Dem running for office.
Funny how things keep repeating...you'd think they would learn by now.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 10:22 AM
Leftists are very dishonest or cowardly. I'm not sure which one it is. Maybe it's both. They are unable to stand behind their own views when they are challenged.
Sorry, but when you frame the views of the left in such hyperbolic hysterical terms, it's hard not laugh and in turn tell you you're full of shit.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:22 AM
I guess we'll wait and see.
I think it's fairly safe to assume the same dire predictions by the right about Obama that didn't come to fruition will be similar to the dire predictions about Clinton. In 8 years we'll probably be having the same discussion about the next Dem running for office.
Some of the predictions came true. Some of his proposals were blocked by public opinion. The mid term slaughter the Democrats sustained under Obama's leadership obstructed the Obama / Leftist agenda.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 10:23 AM
Some of the predictions came true. Some of his proposals were blocked by public opinion. The mid term slaughter the Democrats sustained under Obama's leadership obstructed the Obama / Leftist agenda.
What predictions came true? The FEMA camps? Gun confiscation? Obama's private army? Martial law? Obama declaring himself president for life? Sharia law?
Bethere
10-20-2016, 10:24 AM
I could care less how she looks. I said sick leaders are typically replaced.
You, of all people, would know!
Bethere
Thread banned for ignoring warnings to stop this.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:25 AM
Clearly I'm right about the cowardice and or the dishonesty of the left.
They take stances on issues then deny they took the stance when their ideas aren't received well from the majority.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 10:25 AM
Bo doesn't even realize that if Obama had been allowed to have his way, he wouldn't be able to own that Glock 17 he is so proud of. If by chance, he could own it, he wouldn't be able to buy a magazine with a greater than 10 round capacity.
Sam Adams was talking about people like him when he said “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
He would thank his masters even as they tighten the chains around his neck.
Cigar
10-20-2016, 10:25 AM
She supports open borders. Period. She has stated so in communications she tried to keep secret. Now she's trying to spin that.
Has YOUR Job ever been in jeopardy of a immigrate of any type taking it?
Safety
10-20-2016, 10:25 AM
Sorry, but when you frame the views of the left in such hyperbolic hysterical terms, it's hard not laugh and in turn tell you you're full of shit.
It's not hard at all. Here, try it.. :rofl:.
Cigar
10-20-2016, 10:26 AM
Bo doesn't even realize that if Obama had been allowed to have his way, he wouldn't be able to own that Glock 17 he is so proud of. If by chance, he could own it, he wouldn't be able to buy a magazine with a greater than 10 round capacity.
Sam Adams was talking about people like him when he said “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
He would thank his masters even as they tighten the chains around his neck.
WTF? :laugh:
Bethere
10-20-2016, 10:28 AM
No, I suffer from having to put up with fools like you and that bethere idiot.
That is all.
I am awesome. I am bethere!
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:31 AM
What predictions came true? The FEMA camps? Gun confiscation? Obama's private army? Martial law? Obama declaring himself president for life? Sharia law?
Martial law, fema camps and those things have been used against every president since Reagan.
What did happen was a dramatic increase in debt. A continuing strangling of the economy. Less people in the labor force. Foreign policy incompetence. Weaker and more porous borders. More power taken from individuals and handed to government. You know, the important stuff.
Green Arrow
10-20-2016, 10:31 AM
Did you ever read his original campaign platform?
Of course you didn't. I however, did. When Obama first appeared on the scene, I had never heard of the little shit so I looked at what he had to say. His plans for strict gun control measures were all over his campaign web page. About 2 weeks into the serious campaign, he scrubbed all that. It was obvious what happened. There was even some press commentary about it at the time. His advisors told him that his gun control stance would hurt him in the election, so he just made it go away.
Throughout his presidency, he talked often about the need for stricter gun control measures. It was only because Congress wouldn't play along with him that he was unable to implement any of them.
Clinton has a long record of opposing the individual right to keep and bear arms. She may say one thing in a debate format, but her entire political history says otherwise.
Don't you ever do your due diligence? Do you really accept what Clinton or any other politician for that matter, has to say without verifying it?
This from the guy who believes everything Trump says despite evidence to the contrary.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 10:35 AM
This from the guy who believes everything Trump says despite evidence to the contrary.
What are you babbling about?
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:35 AM
Has YOUR Job ever been in jeopardy of a immigrate of any type taking it?
No. They aren't qualified.
There's more risks with open borders than just taking the jobs Americans refuse to do. There's a thing called "National Security". Does that ring any bells with you?
Cigar
10-20-2016, 10:37 AM
No. They aren't qualified.
There's more risks with open borders than just taking the jobs Americans refuse to do. There's a thing called "National Security". Does that ring any bells with you?
Call we that next time a Mexican Bombs anything.
Safety
10-20-2016, 10:37 AM
Martial law, fema camps and those things have been used against every president since Reagan.
What did happen was a dramatic increase in debt. A continuing strangling of the economy. Less people in the labor force. Foreign policy incompetence. Weaker and more porous borders. More power taken from individuals and handed to government. You know, the important stuff.
Then next time, focus on those things and leave the hyperbole alone.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 10:38 AM
No. They aren't qualified.
There's more risks with open borders than just taking the jobs Americans refuse to do. There's a thing called "National Security". Does that ring any bells with you?
There is no plan for open borders.
I heard this line yesterday a lot..."there is either a country, or there's not". Is there currently a country?
Cigar
10-20-2016, 10:41 AM
There is no plan for open borders.
I heard this line yesterday a lot..."there is either a country, or there's not". Is there currently a country?
Boogie Men are everywhere ... even next door to them :laugh:
When they're done with Immigrants, then they'll go back to the good old standby ... Brown Americans
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 10:43 AM
I'm sort of surprised that no one is talking about Trump's inability to accept the election results.
Even conservatives think he's a dangerous lunatic.
It was clear last night that Trump isn't qualified to be on a school board, let alone lead a country.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:48 AM
Just trivialize the open borders policy of our next president.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 10:50 AM
Just trivialize the open borders policy of our next president.
Or be like you and just make it up....
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:51 AM
Martial law, fema camps and those things have been used against every president since Reagan.
What did happen was a dramatic increase in debt. A continuing strangling of the economy. Less people in the labor force. Foreign policy incompetence. Weaker and more porous borders. More power taken from individuals and handed to government. You know, the important stuff.
Then next time, focus on those things and leave the hyperbole alone.
Those things were predicted and the liberals ridiculed or trivialized those predictions. The left is now trying to hide the record by concentrating on the hyperbole.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 11:06 AM
Or be like you and just make it up....
now you are denying what she has actually stated as one of her policy ideas?
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 11:07 AM
Those things were predicted and the liberals ridiculed or trivialized those predictions. The left is now trying to hide the record by concentrating on the hyperbole.
The hyperbole was what was presented in this thread. Gun confiscation etc...
The topics you brought up are valid arguments that are certainly things that are debatable, yet reasonable.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 11:08 AM
now you are denying what she has actually stated as one of her policy ideas?
In the context that she was talking about. It didn't mean getting rid of borders. That's just silly. She was talking about energy and the commerce associated. To imply that she meant opening up the US border is dishonest.
The Xl
10-20-2016, 11:13 AM
The reality is that Clinton has a lot in common with him policy wise. Democrats also have a variety of views on the 2nd amendment. There will be executive action to destroy the 2nd.
When people claim she's going to destroy the 2nd, it's a little hard to take seriously.
She's planning on using an executive order, circumventing our process, to enact gun control measures. Those are her own words. If she gets in and doesn't do it, great, but their is plenty of reason for concern, because that's what she's actually saying.
Common Sense
10-20-2016, 11:14 AM
She's planning on using an executive order, circumventing our process, to enact gun control measures. Those are her own words. If she gets in and doesn't do it, great, but their is plenty of reason for concern, because that's what she's actually saying.
Where did she say that?
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 11:15 AM
The hyperbole was what was presented in this thread. Gun confiscation etc...
The topics you brought up are valid arguments that are certainly things that are debatable, yet reasonable.
Obama ran as a strong advocate for increased gun control laws. He ran on a platform of massive new regulations upon manufacturers, sellers and private citizens. Plus restricting the availability and purchase of ammunition by private citizens.
Fortunately his most harmful ideas were blocked.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 11:16 AM
In the context that she was talking about. It didn't mean getting rid of borders. That's just silly. She was talking about energy and the commerce associated. To imply that she meant opening up the US border is dishonest.
You our can keep accepting the liberal spin and ignoring her actual policy ideas.
nic34
10-20-2016, 11:19 AM
It's the truth. Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that?
You know, it's ok to recognize a position held by a candidate you support, but disagree. You don't need to be so blindly loyal that you ignore the truth.
Like I said, just like the trumpkins that pick and choose what they want to hear...
The Xl
10-20-2016, 11:20 AM
Where did she say that?
In one of the Wikileak leaks, her press secretary Brian Fallon states that she intends to close the gun show loophole via executive order.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 11:26 AM
Obama set a new precedent for the unconstitutional use of executive orders and the Republicans set another precedent by not blocking them. Both sides are culpable.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 11:26 AM
In one of the Wikileak leaks, her press secretary Brian Fallon states that she intends to close the gun show loophole via executive order.
This is it.
Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask [a]bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.
nic34
10-20-2016, 11:33 AM
What predictions came true? The FEMA camps? Gun confiscation? Obama's private army? Martial law? Obama declaring himself president for life? Sharia law?
And don't forget the Focus on the Family “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America (http://www.wnd.com/files/Focusletter.pdf).”
Peter1469
10-20-2016, 12:32 PM
Nuh, uh!
YOU are the puppet!
Independents are outside of the Establishment.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2li66fmTOv4%2FUDXNKSwTEqI%2FAAAAAAAAOy8%2F6tO8x4Lj Ywk%2Fs1600%2FSheep5.jpg&f=1
Peter1469
10-20-2016, 12:38 PM
This is it.
Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask [a]bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.
Manufacturers of all products, in general (vaccines are one exception), are already liable if their products fail to work as advertised.
What the gun grabbers want is totally different.
Beevee
10-20-2016, 12:40 PM
Independents are outside of the Establishment.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2li66fmTOv4%2FUDXNKSwTEqI%2FAAAAAAAAOy8%2F6tO8x4Lj Ywk%2Fs1600%2FSheep5.jpg&f=1
Free to run amok then, and quite likely to be killed by passing Republicans driving classy cars, paid for with tax rebates derived from their former bankrupt companies.
Cigar
10-20-2016, 12:49 PM
Obama set a new precedent for the unconstitutional use of executive orders and the Republicans set another precedent by not blocking them. Both sides are culpable.
What did you want Obama to do, go play Golf while The Party of No Vacations :laugh:
Don't worry ... The Democrats will eventually take back control of both The Senate and House, then you'll see some action.
Peter1469
10-20-2016, 12:54 PM
Free to run amok then, and quite likely to be killed by passing Republicans driving classy cars, paid for with tax rebates derived from their former bankrupt companies.
If you quote me, please have the sense to actually comment on what I said.
Millions of Americans have realized that the Establishment is something to be avoided.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 01:25 PM
What did you want Obama to do, go play Golf while The Party of No Vacations :laugh:
I wanted him to respect the US Constitution. I wanted him to act as though he is a president and not a King.
Cletus
10-20-2016, 01:43 PM
Manufacturers of all products, in general (vaccines are one exception), are already liable if their products fail to work as advertised.
What the gun grabbers want is totally different.
It is not about defective products. Gun manufacturers are not shielded against injuries caused by a poorly made gun. What the Left wants and what Clinton is trying to push and has been for years, is to make gun makers liable for injuries caused by the negligent or criminal use of their products. It is like saying Ford should be held liable if someone runs over somebody with an F150. No other industry faces that kind of liability, nor should it. Congress had to pass legislation a number of years ago to protect gun makers from such frivolous lawsuits. Now, Clinton wants to strip that protection away.
AZ Jim
10-20-2016, 02:46 PM
I call it a Draw ...
Trump needed a Knockout! ... it didn't happen.
Clinton needed to look Presidential! ... she succeeded.
No one learned anything knew and how could they?
Because we already know everything we need to know about these two individuals.
I if you're on the fence looking for knowledge about these two candidate, you're not going to get anything new between now and November 8th. Well, to use your fight terminology the fact they're wasn't a knockout doesn't mean draw, it means she won with a TKO. She clearly won, in fact I would say by a knockout.
Yeah, I remember all the same hysteria coming from the right when Obama was elected. It's a little hard to take seriously anymore.
you misspelled impossible
I guess you're all doomed now.
If we believe some Trump supporters, Clinton will not only open the borders and destroy America, she'll also take away your guns and start WW3.
Do they even believe their own bullshit?
sadly, yes
one of the many reasons cousins shouldn't marry
Actually that's not quite right. A strong majority across the nation believes that Obama has sent us on the wrong course.
yes, that's why he has a 55% approval rating
do you know what majority means, ace?
It's not hard at all. Here, try it.. :rofl:.
i think he meant it's hard not to laugh
he's right- these bozos are a laff riot
Just trivialize the open borders policy of our next president.
you're gonna wind up in a fema trailer if you don't stop
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:37 PM
you're gonna wind up in a fema trailer if you don't stop
no I won't.
Tahuyaman
10-20-2016, 10:38 PM
yes, that's why he has a 55% approval rating
do you know what majority means, ace?
what do you know? Nothing worth while anyway.
ripmeister
10-20-2016, 10:45 PM
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are coming after the second amendment, make no mistake about it.
Just look at what they do on the local level when they have no meaningful political opposition: They ban guns.
They will do the same thing on the state and national levels if given half the chance.
Of course, they will lie and say that is not their intention, but what sort of imbecile would actually believe them at this point?
where exactly have guns been banned except for places like airports and schools
ripmeister
10-20-2016, 10:53 PM
Notice how calm and cool President Obama is, when he's called a Liar in the Congressional chambers?
Notice how calm and cool President Obama is, when he's called every name in the book for the last 8 years?
Notice how calm and cool President Obama is, the night Osama was Killed?
Some people need to "LOOK" Strong, while other just to the work of Strong Individuals.
Some people don't know the different, because they are easily fooled by Looks, rather than substance.
We all know Donald Trump places Looks over anything else.
Thats why he's No Drama Obama.
MRogersNhood
10-20-2016, 10:54 PM
Hillary wants to severely limit guns and ammunition.
Trump won last night but he closed weakly.
If only he could have reached out to rabid left-wingers.
Hillary has zero plans for jobs for people.
All she has is "Tax the rich" And the government will suck all that up because it's like a vortex.Then what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBBWUZfgRiw
ripmeister
10-20-2016, 11:01 PM
Clinton will certainly pursue some gun control measures just as Obama has. That's not something any Democrat denies. That doesn't equal taking away guns or destroying the 2nd amendment.
That's the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that makes it impossible to discuss the issue.
ditto and unfortunate
ripmeister
10-20-2016, 11:06 PM
what more enforceable gun control measures are needed? Try to answer without providing clichés like "common sense gun legislation".
I hunt. I'm a gun owner. How do you feel about sales at gun shows? Do you think there should be any sort of regulations on the purchase of guns? Should there be no background checks on ones ability to purchase guns? Felons? Mentally ill?
Dr. Who
10-20-2016, 11:16 PM
This is it.
Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask [a]bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.
I am curious, why anyone would support the gun show loophole? Everyone, left or right condemns the sales of guns to criminals. I don't think that other than the criminals themselves anyone wants more guns flowing to the criminal element. Yet some get excited about closing the gun show loophole.
The loophole allows anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer to sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. There is no question that this provides a forum for private citizens to buy and sell guns under the radar.
So Joe goes on the internet searching for people with guns for sale and buys them as cheaply as possible or perhaps he runs a pawn shop and ends up with a lot of guns. He takes them to a gun show to sell them for a profit. He doesn't know the potential buyers from Adam, so he can honestly say he has no reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.
Given that there are more than 4,000 gun shows held in the U.S. annually a private citizen could literally make a living off private sales at gun shows with none of the red tape attached to a licensed seller and with enough Joes doing this, it guarantees a steady flow of firearms to individuals who are unable to buy them legitimately.
While no one suggests that private citizens should be unable to sell their property, all property is not equally benign. If Bob the demolition guy retires with a stock of dynamite, he can't just put a table in front of his house and sell sticks of dynamite to his neighbors. It is just good public policy to restrict access to dynamite, just as it is just good public policy to restrict gun ownership to people who are not criminals.
On the other hand, perhaps the solution is not to restrict the sales of guns, but to restrict the sales of bullets and their components.
ripmeister
10-20-2016, 11:18 PM
Independents are outside of the Establishment.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2li66fmTOv4%2FUDXNKSwTEqI%2FAAAAAAAAOy8%2F6tO8x4Lj Ywk%2Fs1600%2FSheep5.jpg&f=1
Thank god. I'm glad to know I'm not part of,the establishment.
ripmeister
10-20-2016, 11:29 PM
Back to the topic. After about thirty minutes I thought wow, we're actually going to have a substantive debate. Then the meltdown started. I thought Clinton was average but poised as usual. I don't remember now what segment it was but Trump went on one of his incoherent word salads further validating my opinion that he is fully unqualified to be POTUS. Not to mention his refusal to concede should he lose. Oh boy.
FindersKeepers
10-21-2016, 04:32 AM
yes, that's why he has a 55% approval rating
do you know what majority means, ace?
Do you know what "not mutually exclusive" means, ace?
Peter1469
10-21-2016, 05:05 AM
where exactly have guns been banned except for places like airports and schools
DC and Chicago for all intensive purposes. And the murder rates are high.
Tahuyaman
10-21-2016, 09:46 AM
I hunt. I'm a gun owner. How do you feel about sales at gun shows? Do you think there should be any sort of regulations on the purchase of guns? Should there be no background checks on ones ability to purchase guns? Felons? Mentally ill?
I believe we already have enough restrictions in place. We don't need more.
Tahuyaman
10-21-2016, 10:09 AM
where exactly have guns been banned except for places like airports and schools
Several crime infested big cities.
Cigar
10-21-2016, 10:11 AM
DC and Chicago for all intensive purposes. And the murder rates are high.
Do you care ... ?
No really, do you actually care, or does the sound of your voice saying that give you a thrill :laugh:
Chicago, Philadelphia, DC ... Wink-Wink-Nod-Nod .... (Black People)
Cletus
10-21-2016, 12:07 PM
I am curious, why anyone would support the gun show loophole? Everyone, left or right condemns the sales of guns to criminals. I don't think that other than the criminals themselves anyone wants more guns flowing to the criminal element. Yet some get excited about closing the gun show loophole.
There is no "gun show loophole". There never has been. That is just a catch phrase invented by the anti-gun Left to describe a legal, privates sales transaction.
The loophole allows anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer to sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. There is no question that this provides a forum for private citizens to buy and sell guns under the radar.
That is correct. Take note of the part of your statement that I placed in bold print. Anyone who sells a firearm to someone he knows is ineligible under the law to possess that firearm has committed a felony. Most people who sell guns to criminals know they are selling guns to criminals, so changing the law to prohibit law abiding citizens from selling or buying a gun in a private transaction will do absolutely nothing to curtail the sale of firearms to criminals. The people who do it already know they are breaking the law, so do you really think making another law is going to stop them?
The law allows you to sell your gun without having to turn it over to an FFL and not only go through the hassle of doing so, but incurring the additional fees associated with doing so. It allows family members to gift guns to and from each other. It allows a citizen to dispose of his private property without government interference. I once bought a pistol from a municipal police officer from the trunk of his car in a state park. We had talked about the gun earlier in the day, he called me and said it was slow and he didn't have any pending calls and wanted to know if I wanted to meet and check it out. I said okay and the park was about equidistant to both of us, so we met there, I looked at the gun and bought it on the spot. Should that have been illegal? If so, why?
People who want to change the law presuppose that all their fellow citizens are criminals. Well, they are not and it is not right to place restrictions on law abiding citizens just because somebody else wants to live in fear and suspicion of the people around them.
So Joe goes on the internet searching for people with guns for sale and buys them as cheaply as possible or perhaps he runs a pawn shop and ends up with a lot of guns. He takes them to a gun show to sell them for a profit. He doesn't know the potential buyers from Adam, so he can honestly say he has no reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.
If Joe takes guns in pawn, he has to be a licensed FFL. If he does it without being a licensed dealer, he is committing a felony.
Given that there are more than 4,000 gun shows held in the U.S. annually a private citizen could literally make a living off private sales at gun shows with none of the red tape attached to a licensed seller and with enough Joes doing this, it guarantees a steady flow of firearms to individuals who are unable to buy them legitimately.
It actually does nothing of the sort. Most of the people who sell guns privately at gun shows are getting rid of their old hunting rifles or a gun they are no longer interested in owning or shooting or just raising some cash so they can afford the gun they really want. Most private sellers have ONE to sell. There are of course, exceptions. You see people who are selling off estate guns or their own private collections, but they really are the exception. If a guy goes to a dealer and buys an AR15, he isn't going to take it to a gun show the following week to try to sell it. First off, he would be committing a felony (that is already covered by law), and second, he would be losing money.
While no one suggests that private citizens should be unable to sell their property, all property is not equally benign.
The last time I checked, none of my guns were capable of independent action.
If Bob the demolition guy retires with a stock of dynamite, he can't just put a table in front of his house and sell sticks of dynamite to his neighbors. It is just good public policy to restrict access to dynamite, just as it is just good public policy to restrict gun ownership to people who are not criminals.
Are we really going to compare high explosives to your grandfather's .22 squirrel gun?
On the other hand, perhaps the solution is not to restrict the sales of guns, but to restrict the sales of bullets and their components.
The idea has been suggested by rabid anti-gunners a number of times in the past. Unfortunately for them, those things are protected by the Second Amendment.
Bummer, eh?
Dr. Who
10-21-2016, 05:54 PM
There is no "gun show loophole". There never has been. That is just a catch phrase invented by the anti-gun Left to describe a legal, privates sales transaction.
That is correct. Take note of the part of your statement that I placed in bold print. Anyone who sells a firearm to someone he knows is ineligible under the law to possess that firearm has committed a felony. Most people who sell guns to criminals know they are selling guns to criminals, so changing the law to prohibit law abiding citizens from selling or buying a gun in a private transaction will do absolutely nothing to curtail the sale of firearms to criminals. The people who do it already know they are breaking the law, so do you really think making another law is going to stop them?
The law allows you to sell your gun without having to turn it over to an FFL and not only go through the hassle of doing so, but incurring the additional fees associated with doing so. It allows family members to gift guns to and from each other. It allows a citizen to dispose of his private property without government interference. I once bought a pistol from a municipal police officer from the trunk of his car in a state park. We had talked about the gun earlier in the day, he called me and said it was slow and he didn't have any pending calls and wanted to know if I wanted to meet and check it out. I said okay and the park was about equidistant to both of us, so we met there, I looked at the gun and bought it on the spot. Should that have been illegal? If so, why?
People who want to change the law presuppose that all their fellow citizens are criminals. Well, they are not and it is not right to place restrictions on law abiding citizens just because somebody else wants to live in fear and suspicion of the people around them.
If Joe takes guns in pawn, he has to be a licensed FFL. If he does it without being a licensed dealer, he is committing a felony.
It actually does nothing of the sort. Most of the people who sell guns privately at gun shows are getting rid of their old hunting rifles or a gun they are no longer interested in owning or shooting or just raising some cash so they can afford the gun they really want. Most private sellers have ONE to sell. There are of course, exceptions. You see people who are selling off estate guns or their own private collections, but they really are the exception. If a guy goes to a dealer and buys an AR15, he isn't going to take it to a gun show the following week to try to sell it. First off, he would be committing a felony (that is already covered by law), and second, he would be losing money.
The last time I checked, none of my guns were capable of independent action.
Are we really going to compare high explosives to your grandfather's .22 squirrel gun?
The idea has been suggested by rabid anti-gunners a number of times in the past. Unfortunately for them, those things are protected by the Second Amendment.
Bummer, eh?
Not really. In terms of stemming the criminal tide, perhaps the origin of the weapon is irrelevant. If ammo is regulated like dynamite, as an explosive, which it is, then by restricting the sales of ammunition to licensed dealers and prohibiting its sale by private citizens, you are not preventing citizens from selling guns to each other that they no longer want. I doubt many people stockpile bullets since they do have a shelf life.
Cletus
10-21-2016, 05:59 PM
Not really. In terms of stemming the criminal tide, perhaps the origin of the weapon is irrelevant. If ammo is regulated like dynamite, as an explosive, which it is, then by restricting the sales of ammunition to licensed dealers and prohibiting its sale by private citizens, you are not preventing citizens from selling guns to each other that they no longer want. I doubt many people stockpile bullets since they do have a shelf life.
The shelf life of a bullet is a lot longer than the life span of any human. The Supreme Court has ruled that ammunition is a basic component of a firearm and is protected under the Second Amendment.
Dr. Who
10-21-2016, 06:29 PM
The shelf life of a bullet is a lot longer than the life span of any human. The Supreme Court has ruled that ammunition is a basic component of a firearm and is protected under the Second Amendment.
The shelf life is really dependent upon the conditions in which it is stored. If it's stored in cardboard boxes in the basement where there is a lot of humidity, the shelf life is much shorter. Anyway, I'm thinking of kids selling off granddad's hoard of bullets, which is probably not something that happens a great deal. On the other hand, why should bullets be sold like lifesaver candies? Gunpowder can be used to build bombs.
Green Arrow
10-21-2016, 07:27 PM
The shelf life is really dependent upon the conditions in which it is stored. If it's stored in cardboard boxes in the basement where there is a lot of humidity, the shelf life is much shorter. Anyway, I'm thinking of kids selling off granddad's hoard of bullets, which is probably not something that happens a great deal. On the other hand, why should bullets be sold like lifesaver candies? Gunpowder can be used to build bombs.
So can fertilizer.
Dr. Who
10-21-2016, 07:33 PM
So can fertilizer.
Ammonium Nitrate is on the Congressional hit list.
Tahuyaman
10-21-2016, 07:55 PM
Do you care ... ?
No really, do you actually care, or does the sound of your voice saying that give you a thrill :laugh:
Chicago, Philadelphia, DC ... Wink-Wink-Nod-Nod .... (Black People)
You never miss a race baiting opportunity.
Tahuyaman
10-21-2016, 07:56 PM
There is no "gun show loophole". There never has been. That is just a catch phrase invented by the anti-gun Left to describe a legal, privates sales transaction.
Exactly.
MRogersNhood
10-21-2016, 09:54 PM
Trump actually won the debate.
His closing left much to be desired.He could have done so much better.
As for the dinner afterwards.Maybe he doesn't belong in the "Better than you" crowd.
Actually that seems rather apparent.
I'm not mad at him.
AZ Jim
10-21-2016, 10:10 PM
You are delusional. Trump was swamped in all three debates. As to the dinner, he was crude and acted opposite of the demeanor expected in such a forum.
Beevee
10-21-2016, 10:49 PM
You are delusional. Trump was swamped in all three debates. As to the dinner, he was crude and acted opposite of the demeanor expected in such a forum.
I don't think you have considered his ambition. He wants to be a Republican Congressman and is trying out his stylish prose on this forum first.
Yes! I think he will do quite well.
Cletus
10-22-2016, 01:36 AM
The shelf life is really dependent upon the conditions in which it is stored. If it's stored in cardboard boxes in the basement where there is a lot of humidity, the shelf life is much shorter.
If you have ammunition that was produced after the 1930s, unless it has been stored under really bad conditions, it is probably still good.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.