41 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

Double negatives are confusing, so let's just call these people fascists.

13 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Double negatives are confusing, so let's just call these people fascists.

And that is where you might be wrong...

@TEW - since you laughed at my response, question for you.

Is the right to bear arms today stronger or weaker than it was 30 years ago?

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

@TEW - since you laughed at my response, question for you.

Is the right to bear arms today stronger or weaker than it was 30 years ago?

30 years would be 1990, before the Brady bill ban that you’re trying to set up as a false starting point, so weaker.

The question is if gun rights are stronger or weaker than they were in 1900, and again, the answer is weaker because of the progressives.

21 minutes ago, TEW said:

30 years would be 1990, before the Brady bill ban that you’re trying to set up as a false starting point, so weaker.

The question is if gun rights are stronger or weaker than they were in 1900, and again, the answer is weaker because of the progressives.

I picked 30 years because this was recently discussed in the Fifth Column podcast. It was actually since 1986. The one with David French. You can jump to around minute 11 or so that's when they get into the meat of it.

And either way you're completely wrong.

 

There's this perception completely out of touch with reality that we're constantly on the cusp of "liberals taking your guns". The reality is that in the last generation the nation has gotten more, not less, pro-gun.

Because, among other groups, the NRA has conditioned gun supporters to jump to defcon 1 at the hint of any sort of gun control.

21 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I picked 30 years because this was recently discussed in the Fifth Column podcast. It was actually since 1986. The one with David French. You can jump to around minute 11 or so that's when they get into the meat of it.

And either way you're completely wrong.

There's this perception completely out of touch with reality that we're constantly on the cusp of "liberals taking your guns". The reality is that in the last generation the nation has gotten more, not less, pro-gun.

Because, among other groups, the NRA has conditioned gun supporters to jump to defcon 1 at the hint of any sort of gun control.

There is more to gun rights than carry laws.  And again, your starting point is meaningless.  The long term trajectory is against gun rights, not for them, just like every other foundational principle of the republic.

RIP Eskimo Pie! What's next?

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/20/business/eskimo-pie-ice-cream-name-change-trnd/index.html

 

 

1 hour ago, TEW said:

There is more to gun rights than carry laws.  And again, your starting point is meaningless.  The long term trajectory is against gun rights, not for them, just like every other foundational principle of the republic.

That's simply a gross misrepresentation. You're brainwashed.

It's true that there was basically zero gun control - even on manufacturers - at the federal level until the 1930s. Those (the NFA and FFA) were passed in response to the emergence of much more powerful automatic weapons, which to that point society had not had to deal with when it came to guns. Basically, guns became MUCH more deadly. Even so, these measures merely made it illegal to transfer guns to certain classes of individual - mainly convicted felons. Beyond that, it required licenses for those who sold firearms.

Then in 1968 you have the NFA and GCA in 1968. The latter basically put into place the framework for being able to track firearms across state lines, and rules for which kinds of guns can be bought by age. Not a lot of "gun control" really; no weapons were banned by the act, the limitations imposed by the act amounted to keeping guns out of the hands of certain classes of individual (felons, people with violent record, aliens [illegal or otherwise], etc.). 

Fast forward to 1986, and you have FOPA. This was a very pro-gun bill that relaxed many of the rules on gun sales put in place by the GCA of 1968.

Then you have the Brady bill that *gasp* enforced background checks and waiting periods. And finally the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. This was basically the high water mark of "gun control". 

That ban expired in 2004. It's been all pro-gun since. So at the federal level, in our history, we basically had a 10-year period where a small number of assault weapons were banned.

This is all at the federal level however. Most gun restrictions and control measures are at the state and local levels, and those are the ones you see repeatedly challenged in court (e.g. Heller). And while those are less well documented, they have existed in various forms - up to and including laws in some frontier towns that expressly forbid any carrying of firearms within city limits under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment - since long before your 1900 goalpost. Gun ownership in the 1800s was no libertarian utopia.

Back to the present however, the above graphic shows a clear pro-gun trend at the state level. It's simply undeniable that despite all the handwringing and temper tantrums thrown by the gun-rights activists, the actual climate has been moving strongly in the pro-gun direction for the last 30-40 years. If you want to look at the long arc, there was a push for greater gun control through the 60s and 70s as social unrest (and probably a bit of black gun ownership) led to a public demand for it. It varies from locale to locale, but federally it ebbed with the '86 relaxation of many provisions in the '68 GCA, then gun control advocates got a couple of wins with the background checks and the federal assault weapons ban - which expired 10 years later. 

This is not a strong record indicating "the long term trajectory is against gun rights". There has been a bit of ebb and flow as weapons have become more deadly, but that pendulum always seems to swing back in favor of gun-rights, because the political power of the NRA is incredibly strong.

Yet you'll continue to deny it because that's what your worldview demands. Instead, you try to change the parameters of the argument to go back to 1900. Great. I'd be fine with the relaxed gun control laws if the only firearms available were those that were around circa 1900. 

Automatic weapons in the hands of citizens changed the calculus. But some refuse to accept the new calculus. So here we are. 

But let's not be ignorant of the fact that the pendulum has swung heavily in favor of gun-rights in the last 30-40 years, especially at the state level. That's just a fact. 

1 hour ago, Uscg-green said:

RIP Eskimo Pie! What's next?

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/20/business/eskimo-pie-ice-cream-name-change-trnd/index.html

 

 

Quote

The name "Eskimo" is commonly used in Alaska to refer to Inuit and Yupik people, according to the Alaska Native Language Center at the University of Alaska. "This name is considered derogatory in many other places because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean 'eater of raw meat.'"

Learn something new everyday

I thought Eskimo came from people who build igloos. Had no idea it was derogatory.

I eat raw hamburger with salt though whenever making my own burgers 🤷‍♂️ tastes delicious 

I see Snow is still trying to pretend his lies and opinion are facts...

i am sure you support common sense abortion restrictions too

12 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Learn something new everyday

I thought Eskimo came from people who build igloos. Had no idea it was derogatory.

I eat raw hamburger with salt though whenever making my own burgers 🤷‍♂️ tastes delicious 

 

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

You’re brainwashed.

It's true that there was basically zero gun control - even on manufacturers - at the federal level until the 1930s.

Then in 1968 you have the NFA and GCA in 1968. 

 

Anti-slavery protestors (some wearing Nikes) toppled a statue of ULYSSES S. GRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!! On Juneteenth!!!!!!!!

Close the thread. We’ve found the bottom/Peak Woke.

25 minutes ago, SBorBust said:

Anti-slavery protestors (some wearing Nikes) toppled a statue of ULYSSES S. GRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!! On Juneteenth!!!!!!!!

Close the thread. We’ve found the bottom/Peak Woke.

Is the Nike reference to the sweat shops?

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

Is the Nike reference to the sweat shops?

Yeah. That was my editorial comment. I assume some people in SF wear Nikes.

2 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

I eat raw hamburger with salt though whenever making my own burgers 🤷‍♂️ tastes delicious 

 

2 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

 

I noticed that too. What the hell?

2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

 

Raw hamburger meat with some spices or worcestershire sauce is called steak tatare and is a fairly common dish in France.

1 hour ago, xzmattzx said:

Raw hamburger meat with some spices or worcestershire sauce is called steak tatare and is a fairly common dish in France.

Much different than mike grabbing a handful and tossing salt on it, eating it like raw cookie dough. 

🤮

5 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

 

I eat raw hamburger with salt though whenever making my own burgers 🤷‍♂️ tastes delicious 

Ive done that diet before. The hardest part is figuring out when you got the tapeworm and move on from the raw beef.

23 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Much different than mike grabbing a handful and tossing salt on it, eating it like raw cookie dough. 

🤮

1 minute ago, paco said:

Ive done that diet before. The hardest part is figuring out when you got the tapeworm and move on from the raw beef.

I don't do it that often and it's not a lot(because then there's no burger to cook) lol