Trump shares video of "great people" yelling "white power" at pro Trump parade

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2020, 03:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not at all.  I said on here long ago that I consider them to be a stupid range toy.  Also, you can achieve the exact same effect with a belt loop or shoe lace.

So it's ok for the federal government to make things illegal as long as they are unnecessary or easily replicated?  10 years in prison and up to a 250k fine for something that is replaced by a shoelace?

Why no slippery slope there?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 03:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And Trump is proposing a law against burning the American flag and also demanded that a private business fire an employee for protesting.

The right also wants government to control communications on private social media companies.

Seems to me the biggest current threats to the First Amendment are coming from the right.

I suppose that's a matter of perspective.  I'm not in favor of most of what you just mentioned as well.  


As for you assertion about social media companies, they have protection as a "platform for discourse".  The "right's" issue with them is that they do not apply their terms of service in an equitable, fair or consistent manner.  Consequently the argument is that they should lose their special protection as a result.  It's not exactly an unfair position considering that the CEO of Twitter flat out admitted the platform is biased against conservatives.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 03:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So it's ok for the federal government to make things illegal as long as they are unnecessary or easily replicated?  10 years in prison and up to a 250k fine for something that is replaced by a shoelace?

Why no slippery slope there?

I'm not a fan of the ban, but you didn't ask me my opinion on it, you asked if I owned one.  I dislike any decision that is made in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy as they are almost always based on emotion and not logic or common sense.

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2020, 04:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not a fan of the ban, but you didn't ask me my opinion on it, you asked if I owned one.  I dislike any decision that is made in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy as they are almost always based on emotion and not logic or common sense.

You seem to still hold Trump in some regard as an ally of the 2A, but I guess I can assume what he bans is still better than what we assume liberals would do.

I'll admit I assumed that if you could see liberals undoing the 1A you could see Trump helping us down the path towards dismantling the 2A by getting rid of stuff we "don't need."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 04:11 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You seem to still hold Trump in some regard as an ally of the 2A, but I guess I can assume what he bans is still better than what we assume liberals would do.

Certainly more of an ally than Hillary would have been.  I don't think that's debatable. 

Quote:I'll admit I assumed that if you could see liberals undoing the 1A you could see Trump helping us down the path towards dismantling the 2A by getting rid of stuff we "don't need."

You're not really going to catch me having an inconsistent opinion, not that that's what you were trying to do.  You have four very pro 2A SCOTUS justices now, two because of Trump.  Unfortunately Roberts has turned into a swing vote so we're going to need another to undue a lot of the infringement that's already occurred.

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2020, 04:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Certainly more of an ally than Hillary would have been.  I don't think that's debatable. 


You're not really going to catch me having an inconsistent opinion, not that that's what you were trying to do.  You have four very pro 2A SCOTUS justices now, two because of Trump.  Unfortunately Roberts has turned into a swing vote so we're going to need another to undue a lot of the infringement that's already occurred.

That just doesn't seem good enough to charm the 2A crowd, but I guess losing less by assumed comparison is the best they'll get.  Wonder what they deem unnecessary in Trumps 2nd term. 

Well,  whole lot less than Biden we can assume.  Gentle infringement.  Swell.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 04:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That just doesn't seem good enough to charm the 2A crowd, but I guess losing less by assumed comparison is the best they'll get.  Wonder what they deem unnecessary in Trumps 2nd term. 

Well,  whole lot less than Biden we can assume.  Gentle infringement.  Swell.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.  It's a choice between two options, it's not like we had a super duper pro 2A candidate that I subsequently ignored or didn't vote for.  You are correct though, it is gentle infringement, always with the goal of taking more next time around, hence the need for another conservative justice.

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2020, 04:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.  It's a choice between two options, it's not like we had a super duper pro 2A candidate that I subsequently ignored or didn't vote for.  You are correct though, it is gentle infringement, always with the goal of taking more next time around, hence the need for another conservative justice.

I guess it's not you so much as all the Trump fans I see acting like the 2A and freedom and keeping the govt in check are so important while dismissing libertarians.  

I guess as long as democrats are going to take everything we need to thank the neo cons and fake Republicans like Trump who just take less.  Bless em.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 04:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I guess it's not you so much as all the Trump fans I see acting like the 2A and freedom and keeping the govt in check are so important while dismissing libertarians.  

I guess as long as democrats are going to take everything we need to thank the neo cons and fake Republicans like Trump who just take less.  Bless em.

Aside from the bump stocks there's been zero negative action by Trump and his administration on guns and two very pro 2A justices appointed by him.  I don't disagree with your main point though.

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2020, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for you assertion about social media companies, they have protection as a "platform for discourse".  The "right's" issue with them is that they do not apply their terms of service in an equitable, fair or consistent manner.  Consequently the argument is that they should lose their special protection as a result.  It's not exactly an unfair position considering that the CEO of Twitter flat out admitted the platform is biased against conservatives.

I am not familiar with this being said. Is it that it is biased, or that the rules are disproportionately affecting conservatives? From my understanding, there were actions discussed at Facebook that were shelved because efforts to shut down "fake news" and what not would have disproportionately impacted conservative posters and they didn't want to wade into that. Could be the same from Twitter, though I'm unfamiliar with that.

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2020, 04:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Aside from the bump stocks there's been zero negative action by Trump and his administration on guns and two very pro 2A justices appointed by him.  I don't disagree with your main point though.

Hopefully giving the federal government bump sticks worked better that giving Hitler Poland. 

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2020, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for you assertion about social media companies, they have protection as a "platform for discourse".  The "right's" issue with them is that they do not apply their terms of service in an equitable, fair or consistent manner.  Consequently the argument is that they should lose their special protection as a result.  It's not exactly an unfair position considering that the CEO of Twitter flat out admitted the platform is biased against conservatives.

You can't make a law that has zero to do with political neutrality (47 USC 230) and then try to claim  it is somehow based on political neutrality.  Protecting internet providers against liability for false or dangerous information shared on their platform has nothing to do with political neutrality.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 04:55 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hopefully giving the federal government bump sticks worked better that giving Hitler Poland. 

Quite the analogy, not hyperbolic at all. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 04:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't make a law that has zero to do with political neutrality (47 USC 230) and then try to claim  it is somehow based on political neutrality.  Protecting internet providers against liability for false or dangerous information shared on their platform has nothing to do with political neutrality.

It would seem there are many people who disagree with your interpretation of this.  I wonder if you have the same opinion of the law banning lawsuits against fire arms manufacturers when someone uses one of their firearms to kill someone illegally?

[*Nately120*]

(06-29-2020, 04:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite the analogy, not hyperbolic at all. 

Dropping "the big H" in a political debate is always a hit. 

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2020, 04:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  You are correct though, it is gentle infringement, always with the goal of taking more next time around, hence the need for another conservative justice.

Wrong.  Not every reasonable regulation on gun ownership like registration and licensing are step toward something else.

In fact lost of very responsible gun owners favor registration and licensing.  They understand that it is possible to make the country safer with gun regulations without taking everyones guns away.

We have had this discussion before.  I have shown you the numbers.  Lots of people are in favor of licensing and registaration and universal background checks that DO NOT want all guns banned from private ownership.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 05:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  Not every reasonable regulation on gun ownership like registration and licensing are step toward something else.

In fact lost of very responsible gun owners favor registration and licensing.  They understand that it is possible to make the country safer with gun regulations without taking everyones guns away.

We have had this discussion before.  I have shown you the numbers.  Lots of people are in favor of licensing and registaration and universal background checks that DO NOT want all guns banned from private ownership.

You are correct, we've had this discussion before.  I live in CA, so forgive me if I don't buy your position at all having experienced the direct opposite for the past twenty-five plus years.

[fredtoast]

(06-29-2020, 05:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are correct, we've had this discussion before.  I live in CA, so forgive me if I don't buy your position at all having experienced the direct opposite for the past twenty-five plus years.

You have never met a single gun owner who was in favor of registration or licensing?

Half of gun owners support gun registration.

Hell, even 31% of NRA MEMBERS support a gun registry.

And in 25 years you have not met a single one?

[JSR18]

(06-28-2020, 10:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The sooner people denounce Trump and his divisive modus operandi the sooner civility returns.  The guy is like a cancerous tumor you need to cut out.

Alas, we did lie down with a dog and we got fleas.

Civility?? You might want to check the dictionary. All the riots, sit-ins and autonomous zones and ignorant demands to defund the police are getting real close to the definition of anarchy.

How you could possibly choose to live being governed by the deep state with a modicum of unrealistic demands from the far left progressives leaves me in bewilderment.

So yes, I and a large amount of people in the silent majority will be voting for Donald Trump so we can continue this country's committment to our Constitution and Bill of Rights and the United States of America. By defeating the push to form the Socialist States of America...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2020, 07:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You have never met a single gun owner who was in favor of registration or licensing?

Where did I say that?

Quote:Half of gun owners support gun registration.

I highly doubt that.  I am aware of your study.  I would really like to know how that question was worded.  

Quote:Hell, even 31% of NRA MEMBERS support a gun registry.

Same doubts as above.

Quote:And in 25 years you have not met a single one?

Again, were are you getting that?