2020 Presidential Election

[*Synric*]

(09-16-2019, 08:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There are plenty of definitions, just no standard definition universally agreed upon.

When you try to import a weapon from overseas the FBI says it cannot have continuous burst or 3 round burst.

[TheUberHuber]

(09-16-2019, 07:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many suicides are committed with AR-15s? 

How many mass shootings are committed with ar 15's?

Also, how many gang violence shootings are committed with ar 15s? 

[*Synric*]

(09-16-2019, 09:53 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: How many mass shootings are committed with ar 15's?

Also, how many gang violence shootings are committed with ar 15s? 

Very few most are committed by handguns.

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 09:53 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: How many mass shootings are committed with ar 15's?

Also, how many gang violence shootings are committed with ar 15s? 

That's amazing. You were able to alter your post without the little warning thingy. But I will do you the courtesy of answering your question; although you did not extend the same courtesy to me.

I would say no more than with handguns or other weapons. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2019, 08:47 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There are plenty of definitions, just no standard definition universally agreed upon.

Very true.  Given that "assault weapon" is generally a military term I think we should let them define it.  But, as you say, a term with no agreed upon definition has no definition.  Somebody tell Robert Francis.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2019, 09:53 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: How many mass shootings are committed with ar 15's?

Whose definition of "mass shooting" are you using?

Quote:Also, how many gang violence shootings are committed with ar 15s? 

Statistically insignificant, nationwide.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2019, 11:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very true.  Given that "assault weapon" is generally a military term I think we should let them define it.  But, as you say, a term with no agreed upon definition has no definition.  Somebody tell Robert Francis.  

Is it a military term? Because if we look at the TM for the M16 and the M4 the M16 is referred to as a rifle and the M4 is a carbine. The TM doesn’t mention assault rifle once.

I think it is fair to consider the standard issue rifle for modern militaries an assault rifle. Most people can’t agree on the definition of assault rifle for mainly political reasons.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-16-2019, 09:29 PM)Synric Wrote: When you try to import a weapon from overseas the FBI says it cannot have continuous burst or 3 round burst.

So I’ll ask you the same question I asked SSF, would you consider a rifle with a selector switch capable of 3 round burst firing .22LR from 10 round mags an assault rifle?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2019, 12:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is it a military term?  Because if we look at the TM for the M16 and the M4 the M16 is referred to as a rifle and the M4 is a carbine. The TM doesn’t mention assault rifle once.

I think it is fair to consider the standard issue rifle for modern militaries an assault rifle. Most people can’t agree on the definition of assault rifle for mainly political reasons.

Fair enough.  I'm pleased that we both recognize this is a bullshit term used solely for political purposes.  I'd be happy never to hear it voiced again.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-17-2019, 12:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fair enough.  I'm pleased that we both recognize this is a bullshit term used solely for political purposes.  I'd be happy never to hear it voiced again.

People do use the term assault weapon for political purposes. It’s also true people can’t agree on a definition of assault rifle for political reasons. I could give you my definition of an assault rifle, but I can guarantee no one in the NRA would agree for political purposes. They would probably use that selector switch argument. My finger is a selector switch.

[treee]

Bernie explaining why he does not think Biden is the right candidate to run against Trump

https://v.redd.it/we1pmp3jkrn31

[BmorePat87]

(09-20-2019, 03:08 PM)treee Wrote: Bernie explaining why he does not think Biden is the right candidate to run against Trump

https://v.redd.it/we1pmp3jkrn31

Counter point: you need to bring out older minority voters too, which Bernie does not do. Biden does. 

The term "Democratic Socialism" is a losing term, even if the policies themselves are not. If a progressive candidate is the nominee, it will be Warren for that very reason. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2019, 10:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The only thing that stands out about Warren is her refusal to answer direct questions. Biden challenged her to explain how she planned to pay for medicare for all...nothing.....The moderator asked her to explain how she was going to pay for medicare for all.........nothing.....The moderator asked her more specifically do you play on raising taxes on the middle class....nothing. Her rhetoric probably does well with the demographic that prefers ideas over answers, but there's going to come a time that the ones that are targeted to pay for her plan will want an honest answer.

At least Bernie (who I think has gone completely off the rails,but he did write the "Damn Bill") has said he's going to pay for it by raising taxes on the middle class. 

Seems I'm not the only one who took notice:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2020-vision-why-warrens-honeymoon-may-be-coming-to-an-end-210324287.html

Quote:“Senator Warren is known for being straightforward and was extremely evasive when asked that question — and we have seen that repeatedly,” Buttigieg added Thursday in an interview with Jake Tapper. “People are used to Washington politicians not giving straight answers to simple questions. But at a time like this, on an issue this important, that’s exactly what we need.”.......
“I think it’s puzzling that, when everybody knows the answer to that question of whether her plan and Senator Sanders’ plan will raise middle-class taxes is yes, why you wouldn’t just say so, and then explain why you think that’s the better way forward,” Buttigieg told Tapper.

I knew I liked Mayor Pete

[GMDino]

(09-21-2019, 03:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems I'm not the only one who took notice:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2020-vision-why-warrens-honeymoon-may-be-coming-to-an-end-210324287.html


I knew I liked Mayor Pete

Trump got elected saying he has secret health care bill and that Mexico would pay for a wall.

No one who voted for him asked what it cost or how it would be done so I find someone who questioning why she won't answer questions directly absurd as if that is a reason to not vote for her.

I'd like to know more about the plans too, however I feel that is more a general election thing than the primaries.

Could just be me.

[BmorePat87]

(09-21-2019, 03:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump got elected saying he has secret health care bill and that Mexico would pay for a wall.

No one who voted for him asked what it cost or how it would be done so I find someone who questioning why she won't answer questions directly absurd as if that is a reason to not vote for her.

I'd like to know more about the plans too, however I feel that is more a general election thing than the primaries.

Could just be me.

It certainly is a reason not to vote someone, regardless of Trump's BS. I said this during the August debates, but she's very disingenuous when it comes to her healthcare plan. She outright lied when Delaney said her plan ended private insurance and just ranted about corporations. 

One of the laziest attacks coming from the Bernie Bros is that Pete does not have any plans because his website didn't have an issues section for a month after he announced his candidacy. I saw one make that claim a week ago and asked them if they had been to his website since April. They admitted no and then said they didn't like his plans (LOL) less than 5 minutes after me asking (seems like enough time to read them all...). 

Meanwhile Pete now has an incredible collection of plans that are actually plans a candidate for the chief executive role, not a Senator, should have. 

[treee]

(09-21-2019, 04:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It certainly is a reason not to vote someone, regardless of Trump's BS. I said this during the August debates, but she's very disingenuous when it comes to her healthcare plan. She outright lied when Delaney said her plan ended private insurance and just ranted about corporations. 

One of the laziest attacks coming from the Bernie Bros is that Pete does not have any plans because his website didn't have an issues section for a month after he announced his candidacy. I saw one make that claim a week ago and asked them if they had been to his website since April. They admitted no and then said they didn't like his plans (LOL) less than 5 minutes after me asking (seems like enough time to read them all...). 

Meanwhile Pete now has an incredible collection of plans that are actually plans a candidate for the chief executive role, not a Senator, should have. 

Bernie Bros? Wow. That sure is an unpleasant way to paint a key constituency of the democrats in the upcoming election. 

[fredtoast]

(09-16-2019, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: BTW, Dems love the idea of "red flag" gun confiscations, but not for documented gang members.  It's not like the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by a small amount of hard core criminal recidivists or anything.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/democrats-frown-on-targeting-gang-databases-with-red-flag-laws

The problem is not flagging gang members.  The problem is how you define "documented" gang members.

[fredtoast]

(09-16-2019, 06:14 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides 

First it is not a "vast" majority.  Only about 55 to 60 percent.

Second, suicides are a "very small" percentage of gun violence.  For every person killed bya  gun there are 3 more that are shot and survive.  Only a very small percent of these are attempted suicides.  And for every time someone is shot there are dozens of times that a gun is used as a threat in commission of a crime without ever being fired.

Speaking only of "gun deaths" and excluding all injuries and threats as part of "gun violence" is a favorite trick of the NRA.

[fredtoast]

(09-16-2019, 02:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I'm glad Beto let the mask finally slip though.  We never have to hear the obvious lie that the Dems don't want to take away your guns.  

Too bad you only got the NRA version of his comments.

He was talking about assault type weapons (however you want to define them).  He never said he was going to take away all guns.

The government already regulates fully automatic weapons.  So his comments really did not amount to much of anything.


BTW what do you say to the MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS who also support a ban on assault type weapons?


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/poll-most-voters-support-assault-weapons-ban-1452586

Republicans typically are more reticent to support new gun restrictions, and Trump campaigned in 2016 on his strong support for the Second Amendment. But the poll found that 55 percent of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons, and 54 percent said they would support stricter gun laws more generally. Ninety percent said they would back universal background checks for gun sales.


Based on your logic Republicans want to take your guns also.
 

[BmorePat87]

(09-24-2019, 04:35 PM)treee Wrote: Bernie Bros? Wow. That sure is an unpleasant way to paint a key constituency of the democrats in the upcoming election. 

Bernie Bros is a term that has been used since 2016 and refers to a specific subset of his supporters. In this case, I'm referring to ones that are using dishonest attacks on other Democrats to lift up their own.