Trump is functionally retarded

[Al Swearegen]

So, just for argument' sake, let's say they did and the murder rate did drop by half.

Do you think 60,000 people killed in ten years is an acceptable figure?

Wrong question.

Do you imagine that ANY President will be able to make huge inroads into this and put huge restrictions nationwide on Second Amendment Rights? When I say President, I am talking SPECIFICALLY America NOT other countries with different cultures.

ANY limitation on guns suggested by ANYONE to the Republicans (approximately ALL of them AND they ARE the majority) will shoot it down dead and so will a lot of rural Democrats and Independents.

So IF your thought is ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that infringes or limits the Constitutional rights of the Second Amendment then that will NOT happen under the President. If not, what WAS your suggestion?

[Yuri Bezmenov]

So, just for argument' sake, let's say they did and the murder rate did drop by half.

Do you think 60,000 people killed in ten years is an acceptable figure?

The numbers that I got are slightly lower but close to yours.

That would be 6,000 per year in a country of 320M.

35,000 die each year on American roads so statistically (not in reality mind you, getting shot often involves risky behavior where car accidents are a bit more random), you're almost 6 times more likely to be killed in a car accident than get shot.

So in exchange for theoretically preventing 6,000 deaths per year, we get your totalitarian Marxist Utopia.

I'll take the 6,000 deaths per year, thank you very much.


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

[Yuri Bezmenov]

So IF your thought is ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that infringes or limits the Constitutional rights of the Second Amendment then that will NOT happen under the President. If not, what WAS your suggestion?

His suggestion is a totalitarian police state.

[Bastet]

 

[DirtDawg]

So, just for argument' sake, let's say they did and the murder rate did drop by half.

Do you think 60,000 people killed in ten years is an acceptable figure?

The numbers that I got are slightly lower but close to yours.

That would be 6,000 per year in a country of 320M.

35,000 die each year on American roads so statistically (not in reality mind you, getting shot often involves risky behavior where car accidents are a bit more random), you're almost 6 times more likely to be killed in a car accident than get shot.

So in exchange for theoretically preventing 6,000 deaths per year, we get your totalitarian Marxist Utopia.

I'll take the 6,000 deaths per year, thank you very much.


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

I would prefer that neither me nor mine end up as one of those numbers. I travel well armed. Thank you.

Oh, BTW, did I mention that I actually know how to use one ( or many ) of these "evil things" fairly well.

[DirtDawg]

Which reminds me; I need to get back out to the range to continue my sons education and take a second try at helping along my daughter's interest.

They are both still teens, so I have to be there, but I can not think of a better legacy to leave them than a working knowledge of  ... well, how to drill down a target or two with a number of varied weapons.

I just wish I could impress upon them how important it is to see the potential that anything, anywhere around you is ALSO a potential weapon, not just the noisy things that are so much fun to shoot.

Many leagues yet to traverse.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Which reminds me; I need to get back out to the range to continue my sons education and take a second try at helping along my daughter's interest.

They are both still teens, so I have to be there, but I can not think of a better legacy to leave them than a working knowledge of  ... well, how to drill down a target or two with a number of varied weapons.

I just wish I could impress upon them how important it is to see the potential that anything, anywhere around you is ALSO a potential weapon, not just the noisy things that are so much fun to shoot.

Many leagues yet to traverse.

Pistols require a lot more practice than long guns do, to be proficient with a pistol, you should shoot at least 50 rounds a week.

Since ammo is so expensive these days, you might as well teach them how to melt wheel weights down into bullets and load their own ammo.

[DirtDawg]

Which reminds me; I need to get back out to the range to continue my sons education and take a second try at helping along my daughter's interest.

They are both still teens, so I have to be there, but I can not think of a better legacy to leave them than a working knowledge of  ... well, how to drill down a target or two with a number of varied weapons.

I just wish I could impress upon them how important it is to see the potential that anything, anywhere around you is ALSO a potential weapon, not just the noisy things that are so much fun to shoot.

Many leagues yet to traverse.

Pistols require a lot more practice than long guns do, to be proficient with a pistol, you should shoot at least 50 rounds a week.

Since ammo is so expensive these days, you might as well teach them how to melt wheel weights down into bullets and load their own ammo.

Yes, we all reload.  I have casting equipment and several five gallon buckets almost too heavy for the buckets of wheel weights -get them if you can find them- everyone else is looking for them as well, but at this point I am still buying black coated bullets in bulk for my nine millimeter and my forty fives. We mostly shoot the cheapest .22 I can find.
Lessons are still mostly fun at this point and sometimes productive.

I do not shoot every week, but when I do I generally shoot a couple of hundred rounds of either nine MM (I now have two - added a nice Ruger to the Browning) or forty five auto (still only own the three 1911 types and the one Glock), sometimes both.
I seldom carry any of my revolvers to the range. I consider those big, cumbersome magnums as hunting gear and I do not agree that that deliberate type of shooting talent goes away the same as quick draw and muscling a small wieldable handgun around to target.

But honestly, when I think of self defense with a handgun, those to me are a kind of portable half measure that either gets you a chance to get away safely or a chance to get to one of your shotguns or rifles. Twelve gauge is my choice for home defense.

[odeon]

So, just for argument' sake, let's say they did and the murder rate did drop by half.

Do you think 60,000 people killed in ten years is an acceptable figure?

Wrong question.

Do you imagine that ANY President will be able to make huge inroads into this and put huge restrictions nationwide on Second Amendment Rights? When I say President, I am talking SPECIFICALLY America NOT other countries with different cultures.

ANY limitation on guns suggested by ANYONE to the Republicans (approximately ALL of them AND they ARE the majority) will shoot it down dead and so will a lot of rural Democrats and Independents.

So IF your thought is ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that infringes or limits the Constitutional rights of the Second Amendment then that will NOT happen under the President. If not, what WAS your suggestion?

I'm not suggesting anything beyond the president looking into around 12,000 citizens losing their lives every year. I'm pretty sure this wasn't what the founding fathers had in mind when the idea popped up that there should be a well-equipped militia around to fight a leadership gone awry.

And yes, the republicans have the majority but unless I'm mistaken, around 70% of the general population support stricter gun control measures. Not something that will actually limit the options of that militia (which would be powerless in any case, but we already knew that), but at least some kind of sanity check before guns are handed out to people who clearly shouldn't have them.

[odeon]

So, just for argument' sake, let's say they did and the murder rate did drop by half.

Do you think 60,000 people killed in ten years is an acceptable figure?

The numbers that I got are slightly lower but close to yours.

That would be 6,000 per year in a country of 320M.

35,000 die each year on American roads so statistically (not in reality mind you, getting shot often involves risky behavior where car accidents are a bit more random), you're almost 6 times more likely to be killed in a car accident than get shot.

So in exchange for theoretically preventing 6,000 deaths per year, we get your totalitarian Marxist Utopia.

I'll take the 6,000 deaths per year, thank you very much.


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

Ah, so because more people are killed in car accidents, then the utterly preventable gun deaths are OK? Yeah, I always loved that argument.

Also love the totalitarian argument.

What other things do you lie to yourself about?

[odeon]

So IF your thought is ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that infringes or limits the Constitutional rights of the Second Amendment then that will NOT happen under the President. If not, what WAS your suggestion?

His suggestion is a totalitarian police state.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

[Al Swearegen]

So, just for argument' sake, let's say they did and the murder rate did drop by half.

Do you think 60,000 people killed in ten years is an acceptable figure?

Wrong question.

Do you imagine that ANY President will be able to make huge inroads into this and put huge restrictions nationwide on Second Amendment Rights? When I say President, I am talking SPECIFICALLY America NOT other countries with different cultures.

ANY limitation on guns suggested by ANYONE to the Republicans (approximately ALL of them AND they ARE the majority) will shoot it down dead and so will a lot of rural Democrats and Independents.

So IF your thought is ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that infringes or limits the Constitutional rights of the Second Amendment then that will NOT happen under the President. If not, what WAS your suggestion?

I'm not suggesting anything beyond the president looking into around 12,000 citizens losing their lives every year. I'm pretty sure this wasn't what the founding fathers had in mind when the idea popped up that there should be a well-equipped militia around to fight a leadership gone awry.

And yes, the republicans have the majority but unless I'm mistaken, around 70% of the general population support stricter gun control measures. Not something that will actually limit the options of that militia (which would be powerless in any case, but we already knew that), but at least some kind of sanity check before guns are handed out to people who clearly shouldn't have them.

You are absolutely mistaken.

Rather than say "If I was the President I would do as I feel fit and be able to push through my personal views BECAUSE I am President" (which is in a nutshell, what you are saying) I will lead you back to.....

"ANY limitation on guns suggested by ANYONE to the Republicans (approximately ALL of them AND they ARE the majority) will shoot it down dead and so will a lot of rural Democrats and Independents.

So IF your thought is ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that infringes or limits the Constitutional rights of the Second Amendment then that will NOT happen under the President. If not, what WAS your suggestion?"

Such a bill WILL NOT go through regardless of whether or not you particularly like it or it fits neatly into your political ideology.

So we will ask again, IF YOU were the President, how would YOU do what you state YOU would do as President?

I am all good if you are happy to admit you are just full of shit and have no fucking idea about near on anything. That works too.

[odeon]

Do you think your post will somehow have meaning if you capitalise a couple of words? And also, I take it you're OK with the 12,000 yearly casualties, then? Fucking idiot.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Ah, so because more people are killed in car accidents, then the utterly preventable gun deaths are OK? Yeah, I always loved that argument.

They're not preventable, evil people will do evil things and they will get guns if they want them.

The very fact that you think you can control the behavior of others, outs you as an authoritarian.

Also love the totalitarian argument.

The shoe fits, wear it.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

So IF your thought is ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that infringes or limits the Constitutional rights of the Second Amendment then that will NOT happen under the President. If not, what WAS your suggestion?

His suggestion is a totalitarian police state.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

Yes it is, when you read between the lines.