phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2010
- Messages
- 13,590
Well, that or just not release them. I don't think that he's quite so subtle as you suggest.
President Trump
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
- Status
Well, that or just not release them. I don't think that he's quite so subtle as you suggest.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
No trial for Clinton, US pays for wall, no swamp draining. So all you Hair supporters, have you figured out that you've been played yet?
I'll all be Obama/Hillary/the Muslims/the foreigners fault that Trump didn't do things he promised
Why don't you tell us -- in your own words, of course -- why you think it should be easier to get away with shooting people? Suppressors have been tightly restricted -- but not prohibited -- under federal law since 1934. Anyone who wants one for legitimate purposes can buy one if he complies with the law unless he lives in one of the states where the people, through their legislators, have determined that they should not be allowed in their states. (States' rights is a good thing, right?) There is no evidence that limited availability of firearms silencers is harmful to the society.
Apart from the merits of the issue, it says a lot about the the Trumps that Donnie's little boy and avid African game killer is making this one of the first things he wants to do when his dad moves into the White House. What about all those coal mines that are supposed to be coming back to West Virginia, and all those factories promised to Michigan, and all that great health insurance instead of Obamacare?
http://inhabitat.com/donald-trumps-sons-under-fire-for-photos-with-dead-leopard-elephant-and-more/
http://www.google.com/search?q=dona...th9n-IaIUmXz5zOXR86c4g=#imgrc=eIiokpt6OLdy1M:
Last edited:
He doesn't have to do anything. He has announced that ethics and disclosure laws don't apply to him (and he's basically right). His cabinet nominees are refusing to cooperate with background investigators. The day he takes office the Trump administration will be the most corrupt in U.S. history, and it will go downhill from there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ml?tid=pm_politics_pop&utm_term=.66cd43ead061
They should have to remove their arms and legs when leaving the dojo.
760,000 aggravated assaults I'm 2016. It's time to say enough and ban these establishments that encourage punching each other.
There is no harm in prohibiting you from making onerous despicable posts either. I don't need some Government agency telling me what I can own or not own. While that obviously doesn't bother you, it does me. I presume that a Trump is advocating it is the rub. Well, there may be other rubs in the near future and I truly hope it galls naysayers to the bone.
The question is not whether it is harmful, but is it necessary? There is no empirical data to indicate it was harmful either in 1934 or today. While you may wish for a Government Officials to rule your life and what you can do or not, I don't. That's why the the liberal/progressive agenda of big Government has been rejected. It is DEAD and has been defeated. You're going to have to deal with it for at least the next 4 years or possibly 8 years. You may as well get used to it. The last poll I saw indicated that Americans are unhappy with the direction the Government has been headed. Finally, there is a possibility that it may be turned around. I don't know what the future holds and neither do you. What I do know is that the crap I've seen for the past 8 years is finally over. If the behavior of sore losers continues both here and within the Congress among Democrats it may be over forever. I certainly hope so...
Last edited:
Ha ha ha you don't need Government telling you what you can own hahaha. Do you need government telling you to abide by any laws? Or do you just like the ones that are beneficial to you in particular? Are there any laws that are not beneficial to you or that may impact upon you negatively, but you can see their value to society as a whole? or are you just some sort of selective pseudo-anarchist?
No, I'm not an anarchist at all. Not even close. But, I do express my opinion and I try to vote for folks who will honor my self interest as best as I can. Laws are made by legislators who represent me and sometimes they do. This whole discussion is not about obeying laws or not, it's about laws that may or may not be beneficial to society, but serve some distorted sense by those who have a distorted perception of what's necessary and beneficial.
Now, if you have something to say about the subject matter at hand I'll read and maybe reply, otherwise don't lecture me on something that you obviously have either no clue about or no argument to refute what I've said. Capish?
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Goodness, I certainly hope you feel better now!
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
A guy that supports abortion bans is making the argument against "Government Officials to rule your life."?
Conservatives really are stupid.
Conservatives really are stupid.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Pretty sure it's capisce.
One is moral the other not.
As for your other ridiculous but typical comment... Stupidity won this time doncha know!
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,896
So the government is the arbiter of morality?
Someone should tell Trump - he definitely picked the wrong job.
Got it. Supressors are necessary and beneficial. Because you say so.
I'm sorry you thought I was lecturing you, but really I was just trying to clarify your position which I found disturbingly humerous, Hence the lack of an actual lecture in my post.
I don't actually see supressors as necessary, but they may be legitimately beneficial to a small amount of people in a small amount of situations. Sometimes.
Last edited:
Morality can mean anything to anyone at any time. It's subjective.One is moral the other not.
As for your other ridiculous but typical comment... Stupidity won this time doncha know!
BTW do you consider the president elect lying to his voters just to get elected morally good or morally bad?
Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
It is moral because he won. I think that's the conservative position.
I didn't say they were necessary, so don't put words in my mouth. The question should be is it necessary to regulate them by making them cumbersome to acquire via bureaucratic regulatory requirements. It's simply Govt. over reach pure and simple. As I pointed out previously the UK has some of the most onerous anti-gun regulations of anywhere, yet there is no restriction on suppressors. Why is that?
Of course it's subjective. Trump is a BS'er. Most people even his supporters recognize that. On the other hand Hillary is a pathological liar of the first order regarding important issues. That's one of the primary reasons she lost.
Both candidates were onerous and deplorable choices. Voters simply had to make a decision which one they found most despicable and choose the other.
Sent from Asia via two Campbells soup cans and string using free air.
- Status