For Every One: Who Would You NOT Consider Voting For In 2016 [W:58]

Middleground said:

Not all guns. Just the kind that nobody really needs. In my view, anyone with more than half a braincell could agree on this.

And tell me Turtle... what exactly is the "Clinton" gun ban?

Click to expand...

I tire of gun haters who are ignorant about guns telling others what we need. And most americans think honest people should be able to own the same defensive weapons civilian police officers are given with our tax dollars

Lieawatha is an extreme asshole and should never be in office given her hatred of our constitutional rights

TurtleDude said:

I tire of gun haters who are ignorant about guns telling others what we need. And most americans think honest people should be able to own the same defensive weapons civilian police officers are given with our tax dollars

Lieawatha is an extreme asshole and should never be in office given her hatred of our constitutional rights

Click to expand...

And I am tried of gun lovers who are ignorant about the calibre of weapon needed to defend oneself. Most police officers do not carry thosr types of overly powerful weapons, so why should the public?

And you, being a lover of Bush and constitutional rights, should be more concerned with the Patriot Act over people wanting to ban machine guns and the like because of an amendment written over 130 years ago. A time when muskets were all the rage. :roll:

Middleground said:

And I am tried of gun lovers who are ignorant about the calibre of weapon needed to defend oneself. Most police officers do not carry thosr types of overly powerful weapons, so why should the public?

And you, being a lover of Bush and constitutional rights, should be more concerned with the Patriot Act over people wanting to ban machine guns and the like because of an amendment written over 130 years ago. A time when muskets were all the rage. :roll:

Click to expand...

what gaping stupidity-its the very weapons police use for self defense that the gun banning idiots are targeting

TurtleDude said:

And most americans think honest people should be able to own the same defensive weapons civilian police officers are given with our tax dollars

Click to expand...

By all means please do present your verifiable evidence that "most Americans"
1- believe police officers are civilians, and
2 - believe they should have the same weapons as the police

I welcome seeing such verifiable evidence.

TurtleDude said:

what gaping stupidity-its the very weapons police use for self defense that the gun banning idiots are targeting

Click to expand...

Glocks?

Middleground said:

And I am tried of gun lovers who are ignorant about the calibre of weapon needed to defend oneself. Most police officers do not carry thosr types of overly powerful weapons, so why should the public?

And you, being a lover of Bush and constitutional rights, should be more concerned with the Patriot Act over people wanting to ban machine guns and the like because of an amendment written over 130 years ago. A time when muskets were all the rage. :roll:

Click to expand...

First off, learn math. When was the second amendment ratified? Try 1791. It was 222 years ago, not 130 years ago. The last time I checked it doesn't say that it only protects arms from 1791 and earlier. Do you see that anywhere in the second amendment? No, because it's meant to protect the peoples right to bear arms, not to protect their right to bear only certain arms from a certain time period.

Who the hell cares what the police carry? Does it look like I care? Nope, I don't give a ****. Do you know why? Because this isn't about what the mother****ing police carry, but about what the people carry. The only time it matters what the police carry is when the people aren't allowed to carry the same weaponry. Other than that, who cares? As long as the people have their right to bear arms protected and can carry the same weaponry as police it doesn't matter one bit to the conversion at hand.

Oh and I can be concerned about two things that once. Maybe that is just me though.

I'd NOT even vote for an earthworm, if I knew he was an extremist.
A Hitler or Khan , we do not need...nor
a Cruz or a Paul , we need NOT....

Middleground said:

Glocks?

Click to expand...

The standard issue magazine for a 9mm Glock is 17 rounds. Lieyawatha wants to prevent citizens from having such magazines. The clinton gun ban caused the price of those magazines to go from 20 dollars to over 100 by 1995

haymarket said:

By all means please do present your verifiable evidence that "most Americans"
1- believe police officers are civilians, and
2 - believe they should have the same weapons as the police

I welcome seeing such verifiable evidence.

Click to expand...

you still pretending that employees of civilian police departments are not civilians?

if you actually read Heller you would understand that Heller pretty much establishes that point

TurtleDude said:

you still pretending that employees of civilian police departments are not civilians?

Click to expand...

Gun issues will indeed play a role in the 2016 election and they should be front and center. We need candidates who are not associated with the gun lobby and do not have a far right interpretation of the Second Amendment.

As to police officers not being civilians and me pretending that they are.....

yeah - just me all by myself .... OH! .... and these authorities on the meaning of words agree with me also.

Google definitions

ci·vil·ian
səˈvilyən/
noun
noun: civilian; plural noun: civilians
1. 
a person not in the armed services or the police force.

______________________________________________

Merriam-Webster

Civilian - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

ci·vil·ian noun \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force


Full Definition of CIVILIAN
1
:* a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a :* one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

_____________________________________

freeonline dictionary

civilian - definition of civilian by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
ci·vil·ian (s -vlyn)n.1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
2. A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
3. A specialist in Roman or civil law.





__________________________________________

Civilian | Define Civilian at Dictionary.com

ci·vil·ian [si-vil-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

____________________________________
civilian: definition of civilian in Oxford dictionary - American English (US)

Definition of civilian in English
civilian
Syllabification: (ci·vil·ian)
Pronunciation: /səˈvilyən/

noun
a person not in the armed services or the police force.


The desire to rewrite the dictionary is based purely on the extremist belief that the far right wants the same firepower as the government when the day of right wing jubilee arrives and they have to take to the streets to do battle killing their fellow Americans. To do that the far right invent their own meanings of words and ignore reality.

haymarket said:

Gun issues will indeed play a role in the 2016 election and they should be front and center. We need candidates who are not associated with the gun lobby and do not have a far right interpretation of the Second Amendment.

As to police officers not being civilians and me pretending that they are.....

yeah - just me all by myself .... OH! .... and these authorities on the meaning of words agree with me also.

Google definitions

ci·vil·ian
səˈvilyən/
noun
noun: civilian; plural noun: civilians
1. 
a person not in the armed services or the police force.

______________________________________________

Merriam-Webster

Civilian - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

ci·vil·ian noun \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force


Full Definition of CIVILIAN
1
:* a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a :* one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

_____________________________________

freeonline dictionary

civilian - definition of civilian by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
ci·vil·ian (s

-v

l

y

n)n.1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
2. A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
3. A specialist in Roman or civil law.





__________________________________________

Civilian | Define Civilian at Dictionary.com

ci·vil·ian [si-vil-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

____________________________________
civilian: definition of civilian in Oxford dictionary - American English (US)

Definition of civilian in English
civilian
Syllabification: (ci·vil·ian)
Pronunciation: /səˈvilyən/

noun
a person not in the armed services or the police force.


The desire to rewrite the dictionary is based purely on the extremist belief that the far right wants the same firepower as the government when the day of right wing jubilee arrives and they have to take to the streets to do battle killing their fellow Americans. To do that the far right invent their own meanings of words and ignore reality.

Click to expand...

sadly for you, the definitions you cited are what cops use to pretend they are different than other CIVILIANS. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND US CODE disagree with you and you have been edified of this fact. AND YOU IGNORE THE FACT that the FBI, USMS and the DEA are called CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT organizations and answer to CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS such as the US ATTORNEY

TurtleDude said:

sadly for you, the definitions you cited are what cops use to pretend they are different than other CIVILIANS.

Click to expand...

Actually its what the authorities who write the dictionaries define the term as.

The term CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT is simply used to indicate they are not active military personnel. It is NOT a statement that police are civilians.

TurtleDude said:

The standard issue magazine for a 9mm Glock is 17 rounds. Lieyawatha wants to prevent citizens from having such magazines. The clinton gun ban caused the price of those magazines to go from 20 dollars to over 100 by 1995

Click to expand...

“There is a huge difference between the guns of a sportsman or homeowner and high-powered assault weapons with 100-cartridge magazines,” she said. “I grew up around guns and gun owners, and I will work to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. But the law must reflect the reality that, in the wrong hands, guns can be used for violent crimes, disrupting communities and making families and neighborhoods less safe.”

Click to expand...

What she wants makes perfectly goods sense to me. There's no need to make Swiss cheese out of an intruder.

Middleground said:

What she wants makes perfectly goods sense to me. There's no need to make Swiss cheese out of an intruder.

Click to expand...

what you constantly fail to understand is that these gun banners incrementally limit stuff. We saw that in NY. How about a law that said citizens get all the same things that civilian police departments get

Middleground said:

What she wants makes perfectly goods sense to me. There's no need to make Swiss cheese out of an intruder.

Click to expand...

A counter argument would be: "better to have the rounds and not need them, then not have them and need them".

Or my personal favorite - "since there is no good reason to limit the number of rounds in a clip, no law limiting such should be created"

All but Clinton and Paul.

Rand Paul would be the absolute best, Hillary would be the absolute worst with Biden coming in at just plain stupid. The rest would just consolation prizes.

TurtleDude said:

what you constantly fail to understand is that these gun banners incrementally limit stuff. We saw that in NY. How about a law that said citizens get all the same things that civilian police departments get

Click to expand...

I don't agree. It's just fear being instilled by the NRA.

The Mark said:

A counter argument would be: "better to have the rounds and not need them, then not have them and need them".

Or my personal favorite - "since there is no good reason to limit the number of rounds in a clip, no law limiting such should be created"

Click to expand...

Hey, if you wanna ply Jesse James in your living room, go for it. Most people who think it's overkill.

Middleground said:

I don't agree. It's just fear being instilled by the NRA.

Click to expand...

well you obviously aren't paying attention to what has happened in states like NY, Connecticut, California and New Jersey.

Middleground said:

Hey, if you wanna ply Jesse James in your living room, go for it. Most people who think it's overkill.

Click to expand...

I don't personally own any guns atm.

I'm just saying..."oh that's a lot, you don't need THAT many bullets at once" ...does not constitute a valid reason to disallow owning such things.


Edit: IOW, so what if it's overkill?

Middleground said:

And I am tried of gun lovers who are ignorant about the calibre of weapon needed to defend oneself. Most police officers do not carry thosr types of overly powerful weapons, so why should the public?

Click to expand...

They won't likely *need* all that they own, but I consider it more of a hobby. I'm cool with that. I see no reason to clamp down on gun use. That being said, I might be more into background checks than they are, but eh, I have no passion against guns.

Middleground said:

Hey, if you wanna ply Jesse James in your living room, go for it. Most people who think it's overkill.

Click to expand...

Is that a reason to impose on our constitutional right to bare arms? Personally i believe that the entirety of the american people should be able to vote whether or not to take away a freedom we have. We may have voted for our representatives in congress but there are things we can not afford to just let slide. Raising the debt ceiling, fine they are going to do it anyways. Political party crap like the shut down, fine not much we can do to end bipartisan crap at the moment. Impeding on our constitutional rights, no.

I believe we should add a contingency clause to the Constitution. Should any state find a law or motion in congress that it wants to vote on, that the PEOPLE of that state want to vote on, then the people of that state may vote, as one singular body worth at least two congressional votes in either half of congress, on that law, so long as it pertains to any motion involving the constitution, or a law that would effect at least half of the general population of that state.

Let me make this clear. this is not a state legislature vote, this is a form of direct democracy similar to the way the electoral collage is run, where the people vote determines which side of the argument the two votes go to.

Thoughts?

Henrin said:

First off, learn math. When was the second amendment ratified? Try 1791. It was 222 years ago, not 130 years ago. The last time I checked it doesn't say that it only protects arms from 1791 and earlier. Do you see that anywhere in the second amendment? No, because it's meant to protect the peoples right to bear arms, not to protect their right to bear only certain arms from a certain time period.

Who the hell cares what the police carry? Does it look like I care? Nope, I don't give a ****. Do you know why? Because this isn't about what the mother****ing police carry, but about what the people carry. The only time it matters what the police carry is when the people aren't allowed to carry the same weaponry. Other than that, who cares? As long as the people have their right to bear arms protected and can carry the same weaponry as police it doesn't matter one bit to the conversion at hand.

Oh and I can be concerned about two things that once. Maybe that is just me though.

Click to expand...

Ok i totally agree but one or two points i just want to comment on.

1.People care about what the police have when he police are defending themselves against ak's with pistols
and actually thats it

JJB3333 said:

Is that a reason to impose on our constitutional right to bare arms?

Click to expand...

Hey, do whatever the hell you want with a razor or wax... I won't judge.