If the Democrats want to win seats next election...

[water505]

You're not a gun nut, just a regular nut.

Hey, dumbass...read the last sentence of my post which accurately predicted your response.

Nice.

You're a constant source of entertainment.

 

[richard_daily]

Hey, dumbass...read the last sentence of my post which accurately predicted your response.

Nice.

You're a constant source of entertainment.

Sorry, I didn't read your post.

What did it say?

 

[water505]

Sorry, I didn't read your post.

What did it say?

Good Lord, man. You quote my post and say you didn't read it.

Too stupid for words.

 

[richard_daily]

I'm sure it was another pointless, stupid post.

Try a little harder next time, little guy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There are tons of regulations on where you can carry and shoot guns.


They ARE ridiculously regulated... in violation of the 2nd amendment in many cases.

Yea but regulations aren't control and since they don't actually mean ANYTHING except benefits for the greater good they can't really violate the 2nd amendment in any way.

They will lose every election in the years to come, if they continue to take this stance against very commonly owned and used rifles and handguns.

Mark my words.

They will do great!!! Some more hate for white guys, few more 'fuck you!!' s to fly over country and the working class....they'll be storming DC in no time.

LOL

 

[richard_daily]

Yea but regulations aren't control and since they don't actually mean ANYTHING except benefits for the greater good they can't really violate the 2nd amendment in any way.

If the government regulates an "assault weapon", do they own the "assault weapon"?

1994 clearly shows that they don't.

 

[Hypoxia]

O've mentioned this before. The 2nd says "bear arms". It doesn't say WHICH arms are bearable. GOv'ts ban morningstars, spring stilettos, bazookas, Claymores, nukes, etc. A future SCOTUS might allow batons, bayonets, and wood-and-rubber slingshots, nothing else.

Such would be constitutional. And unenforceable. When anyone with a 3D printer can produce pistols and more, firearms control is dead. And gunpowders are substances of abuse. All them gun junkies ain't going away anytime soon.

 

[richard_daily]

O've mentioned this before. The 2nd says "bear arms". It doesn't say WHICH arms are bearable. GOv'ts ban morningstars, spring stilettos, bazookas, Claymores, nukes, etc. A future SCOTUS might allow batons, bayonets, and wood-and-rubber slingshots, nothing else.

Such would be constitutional. And unenforceable. When anyone with a 3D printer can produce pistols and more, firearms control is dead. And gunpowders are substances of abuse. All them gun junkies ain't going away anytime soon.

McDonald v. Chicago laid out that firearms are permissible to be legally owned under the 2nd amendment, and carried concealed. It's extremely unlikely that that precedent will be overturned.

You can't stop someone from doing something illegal, you can only attempt to institute punitive measures. If someone wants to kill someone (with a knife, a chair, their fists, or a firearm), they will. You can only punish them afterwards.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

they need to stop running anti-gun candidates.

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio all have a huge amount of law-abiding gun-owning folks who do not want to see their rights infringed. These are the battleground states. Now, it might not make as much of a difference in the mid-terms, but people don't just re-set and forget what a political party has done every election. Actions have consequences, and continuously running anti-2nd Amendment candidates is at least a mitigating factor in why we have Trump now.

Democrats need to run candidates with a history of actually doing actionable good for the people, rather than stuff from 30-40 years ago, before they "got into" politics.

Pelosi needs to go, as do a lot of the old guard who are completely out of touch with the average american.

Love it or hate it, populism has a broad appeal, whether it's leftist or right-wing populism.

They cant win without white trash voters.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If the government regulates an "assault weapon", do they own the "assault weapon"?

Break some regs and find out

 

[Hypoxia]

McDonald v. Chicago laid out that firearms are permissible to be legally owned under the 2nd amendment, and carried concealed. It's extremely unlikely that that precedent will be overturned.

Unlikely but possible. But unlikely.

You can't stop someone from doing something illegal, you can only attempt to institute punitive measures. If someone wants to kill someone (with a knife, a chair, their fists, or a firearm), they will. You can only punish them afterwards.

Some would argue that an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. It's easier to kill with a pistol than a pickle. (Pickles don't kill; people do.) If concealed-carry pickles outnumber pistols will murder rates drop? Do nations with tight firearms controls see more bludgeonings, stabbings, strangulations, icepick attacks, poisonings?

 

[richard_daily]

Some would argue that an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. It's easier to kill with a pistol than a pickle. (Pickles don't kill; people do.) If concealed-carry pickles outnumber pistols will murder rates drop? Do nations with tight firearms controls see more bludgeonings, stabbings, strangulations, icepick attacks, poisonings?

You can argue against guns all that you want... Doesn't change the facts, or the right to own them. This line of argument, and marginalizing gun owners will cost the Democrats voters in 2018, and definitely in 2020.

 

[richard_daily]

Break some regs and find out

I don't have to. I already know the answer.

 

[Hypoxia]

You can argue against guns all that you want... Doesn't change the facts, or the right to own them. This line of argument, and marginalizing gun owners will cost the Democrats voters in 2018, and definitely in 2020.

I've not argued against firearms possession. I've said firearms control in USA is now impossible. That cat is out of the barn. Anyone who wants to be armed, is or will be. And soon, handheld laser weapons will obsolete firearms. I don't know how long civilization will survive then. That's the path we're on. Enjoy the ride.

 

[richard_daily]

I've not argued against firearms possession. I've said firearms control in USA is now impossible. That cat is out of the barn. Anyone who wants to be armed, is or will be. And soon, handheld laser weapons will obsolete firearms. I don't know how long civilization will survive then. That's the path we're on. Enjoy the ride.

You seem to believe that possession of a gun (or laser) implies that the weapon or laser will be used offensively.

I don't find that to be true, or find that relevant to the fact that the official Democratic stance on guns is alienating voters in key battleground states.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't have to. I already know the answer.

So them you're going to behave according to how that owner tells you aren't you?

Otherwise you know who will be getting owned by who then won't you?

 

[richard_daily]

So them you're going to behave according to how that owner tells you aren't you?

Otherwise you know who will be getting owned by who then won't you?

In your "free market" fantasy, the black market... everything in it is regulated by the government. Does that mean that the government owns everything in the black market?

Come on dude... use your brain.

 

[Rightguide]

In your "free market" fantasy, the black market... everything in it is regulated by the government. Does that mean that the government owns everything in the black market?

Come on dude... use your brain.

They just end up taxing the lion's share of the profits.

 

[BotanyBoy]

In your "free market" fantasy, the black market... everything in it is regulated by the government. Does that mean that the government owns everything in the black market?

Only when they do the regulating.

Because regulation is ownership.

Come on dude... use your brain.

Indeed...you're so close!!

When the government regulates a black market guess who owns that black market?

Who owns these drugs???

Upon regulation, guess who owns these guns!!

Are we starting to understand the regulation <-> ownership relationship yet?

 

[Que]

They just end up taxing the lion's share of the profits.

I don't know if we are quite there yet for the majority but some businesses do make a lower profit margin than the local sales taxing authority does.

The average markup in an appliance store is about 10% to 15% over cost. From that they have to pay the lights salary, rent on the building payroll taxes. I've lived in plenty of jurisdictions where are the sales tax rate is 10%.

Just because government lets you have nominal ownership and lets you operate your business for their benefit does not mean that you have anything close to unfettered capitalism going on.

Property taxes in some locals rival mortgage payments. You can eventually pay off mortgage, but property taxes are for lif, and ever increasing. As long as you own that property you continue to pay for the privilege of owning that property. from a strictly economic standpoint you never actually own the property the state owns your property and rents it to you. if you don't pay the rent you will be evicted.

with increasing longevity people are out living their ability to stay in their own homes based on property taxes alone. In several jurisdictions here there's an exemption for the elderly where their property tax rate is frozen or abated for that very reason. On eviction, it would immediately become apparent that your Grandma and Grandpa never did on their house, the state always did.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't know if we are quite there yet for the majority but some businesses do make a lower profit margin than the local sales taxing authority does.

The average markup in an appliance store is about 10% to 15% over cost. From that they have to pay the lights salary, rent on the building payroll taxes. I've lived in plenty of jurisdictions where are the sales tax rate is 10%.

Just because government lets you have nominal ownership and lets you operate your business for their benefit does not mean that you have anything close to unfettered capitalism going on.

Property taxes in some locals rival mortgage payments. You can eventually pay off mortgage, but property taxes are for lif, and ever increasing. As long as you own that property you continue to pay for the privilege of owning that property. from a strictly economic standpoint you never actually own the property the state owns your property and rents it to you. if you don't pay the rent you will be evicted.

with increasing longevity people are out living their ability to stay in their own homes based on property taxes alone. In several jurisdictions here there's an exemption for the elderly where their property tax rate is frozen or abated for that very reason. On eviction, it would immediately become apparent that your Grandma and Grandpa never did on their house, the state always did.

My point was a bit of tongue in cheek, but if we look at the highest Corporate tax bracket (Corps pay taxes on profits) and add it to the capital gains rate ( the percentage of taxes on the same profits once distributed to the true owners) the government take on corporate profits in many cases exceeds 50% percent of profits, the lion's share.

 

[Rightguide]

Only when they do the regulating.

Because regulation is ownership.




Indeed...you're so close!!

When the government regulates a black market guess who owns that black market?

Who owns these drugs???

Upon regulation, guess who owns these guns!!

Are we starting to understand the regulation <-> ownership relationship yet?

*Snicker*

 

[water505]

Why is it that every thread started by Dick Doily ends with him looking like a complete fool?

He must like it.

 

[Rightguide]

Why is it that every thread started by Dick Doily ends with him looking like a complete fool?

He must like it.

Obviously, he's an intellectual masochist. He took a liking to the "kick me" signs people taped on his back in school.

 

[richard_daily]

Only when they do the regulating.

Because regulation is ownership.

WRONG!

So the goods sold at the black market have no government regulations placed on them?

Beause here's the definition of a black market:

black market
noun


Definition of black market

: illicit trade in goods or commodities in violation of official regulations; also : a place where such trade is carried on.

So there ARE regulations on the goods sold at a black market, but somehow, the government DOESN'T own them... So basically, using your own example, your argument is completely logically flawed.

If a regulation equaled ownership, a black market would not be possible.

When the government regulates a black market guess who owns that black market?

The people in possession of the goods... Not the people making the regulations. Is it really that hard for you?

Who owns these drugs???

Upon regulation, guess who owns these guns!!

Are we starting to understand the regulation <-> ownership relationship yet?

Regulation does not equal ownership. Possession equals ownership. The regulation doesn't magically transfer the guns or drugs into the possession (ownership) of the police, just like regulations placed on the black market don't mean that a government owns the black market or any of the goods held in a black market.

Every item sold at a black market IS regulated. That's the definition of a black market.

Seriously, you and water and rightguide can't be this ignorant to basic logic. I refuse to believe that any of you have a higher than 3rd grade education if you truly believe this garbage.