24 minutes ago, NOTW said:

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

🤮

Yeah. The grade of beef tends to be a tad higher than your standard hamberder patty

9 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

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. 

This post is so wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. 
 

The NFA had nothing to do with automatic weapons. It had everything to do with the 1% being terrified of the Bonus Army. Most gangsters of the era got their hardware by knocking off National Guard armories, so to say they did it to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys is very wrong, as the bad guys weren’t even legally buying them when they were legal to buy. The Richie Riches of the day were worried that the Bonus Army was going to overthrow the government and they were going to lose out on their fat lifestyles, so they got the NFA passed. One of the main goals of the NFA was to prohibit handguns, not automatic weapons. As a matter of fact automatic weapons weren’t banned. What were banned were SBS’s and SBR’s because there were in there in case someone tried to circumvent the part about banning pistols (which was taken out of the legislation). 

’68 was a pushback against the black panthers because they wanted to make sure guns weren’t flowing into states that limited the black panthers ability to own them. 
 

‘86 closed the machine gun registry and was an early attempt on ‘94 AWB which was part of the tough on crime era aka the "crack cocaine and black men scare my affluent white a**” era. 
 

Also you ever take a look at the fact that after they tied in felony convictions to gun ownership all of a sudden black people were getting felonies through the roof?

It wasn’t automatic weapons in the hands of the public that changed the calculus. It was automatic weapons in the hands of people the 1% didn’t like that changed the calculus.

Way to be a slave to the 1% and regurgitate their talking points. 

12 hours ago, xzmattzx said:

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

Mexicans have a raw ground beef dish too.  Its got lemon and some other seasonings.  Cant remember the name but its like a ground beef ceviche you eat with tostada shells

12 hours ago, xzmattzx said:

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

  

10 hours ago, paco said:

Yeah. The grade of beef tends to be a tad higher than your standard hamberder patty

 

I love a good steak tartare, but yeah, it's high grade beef. I only get it at really high-end places. It's ground from a center-cut steak, I believe.

9 hours ago, Bill said:

This post is so wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. 
 

The NFA had nothing to do with automatic weapons. It had everything to do with the 1% being terrified of the Bonus Army. Most gangsters of the era got their hardware by knocking off National Guard armories, so to say they did it to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys is very wrong, as the bad guys weren’t even legally buying them when they were legal to buy. The Richie Riches of the day were worried that the Bonus Army was going to overthrow the government and they were going to lose out on their fat lifestyles, so they got the NFA passed. One of the main goals of the NFA was to prohibit handguns, not automatic weapons. As a matter of fact automatic weapons weren’t banned. What were banned were SBS’s and SBR’s because there were in there in case someone tried to circumvent the part about banning pistols (which was taken out of the legislation). 

’68 was a pushback against the black panthers because they wanted to make sure guns weren’t flowing into states that limited the black panthers ability to own them. 
 

‘86 closed the machine gun registry and was an early attempt on ‘94 AWB which was part of the tough on crime era aka the "crack cocaine and black men scare my affluent white a**” era. 
 

Also you ever take a look at the fact that after they tied in felony convictions to gun ownership all of a sudden black people were getting felonies through the roof?

It wasn’t automatic weapons in the hands of the public that changed the calculus. It was automatic weapons in the hands of people the 1% didn’t like that changed the calculus.

Way to be a slave to the 1% and regurgitate their talking points. 

It's actually not wrong. And not inconsistent with much of what you wrote.

The NFA of 1934 specifically targeted automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Even guns.com agrees with me on this: https://www.guns.com/news/2013/01/03/gun-law-101-national-firearms-act-of-1934

And it didn't ban them, but imposed a transfer tax on them. 

It also wasn't the first attempt at gun control by a long margin. Many states sought to ban machine guns in the decade prior to the 1934 federal acts. Even states like West Virginia: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2206&context=wvlr

But none of what you stated, calculus or otherwise, addresses the point I was actually making. That gun-rights have been STRENGTHENED in the last 30-40 years, not weakened. 

There is this perception that "liberals are going to take your guns away" every time there's an elections. Those voters are the slaves of the 1%, because they're buying in to this nonsense that "liberals" are on the cusp of "taking your guns". 

They're nowhere close.

We have people open-carrying semi-automatic rifles  at rallies and protests in 2020. You think that was happening in the 60s? 80s? No.

90% of gun control happens at the state level, and the trend has been pro-gun for a very long time. 

It's a myth - a fetish for some, and leverage with voters for others - that government is about to "take your guns", and yet it persists. And that myth is used to "enslave" (using your hyperbolic language) and scare a bunch of people into emotionally binding themselves to a particular political party.

iT's a mYtH 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

  

 

I love a good steak tartare, but yeah, it's high grade beef. I only get it at really high-end places. It's ground from a center-cut steak, I believe.

Well la dee f’ing da.

10 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Well la dee f’ing da.

I support the "Treat yo'self" mantra, haha. But I only let myself enjoy meal like that maybe once a year. Usually a vacation deal.

3 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

iT's a mYtH 

The question I posed was whether or not gun rights are stronger or weaker than 30-40 years ago.

Not whether one party is and has been trying to enact stronger gun control (which is not tantamount to "taking your guns away"). 

The point, again since you guys seem pretty thick, isn't whether one party would like to.

The point is that by any practical measure gun rights are stronger today than any time in living memory for basically every member of this message board. 

Is that last statement true, or false? No strawmen, no moving goalposts. Is that statement true, or false? Are gun rights stronger or weaker today than in living memory?

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The question I posed was whether or not gun rights are stronger or weaker than 30-40 years ago.

Not whether one party is and has been trying to enact stronger gun control (which is not tantamount to "taking your guns away"). 

The point, again since you guys seem pretty thick, isn't whether one party would like to.

The point is that by any practical measure gun rights are stronger today than any time in living memory for basically every member of this message board. 

Is that last statement true, or false? No strawmen, no moving goalposts. Is that statement true, or false? Are gun rights stronger or weaker today than in living memory?

It depends where you live and who is in charge. 

In New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Delaware, Michigan  etc..... No, they're not. 

Thank God the Newtown shooting didn't happen early in Obama's first term when he had a veto proof super majority or else we'd be having a totally different conversation right now. 

 

15 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

It's actually not wrong. And not inconsistent with much of what you wrote.

The NFA of 1934 specifically targeted automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Even guns.com agrees with me on this: https://www.guns.com/news/2013/01/03/gun-law-101-national-firearms-act-of-1934

And it didn't ban them, but imposed a transfer tax on them. 

It also wasn't the first attempt at gun control by a long margin. Many states sought to ban machine guns in the decade prior to the 1934 federal acts. Even states like West Virginia: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2206&context=wvlr

But none of what you stated, calculus or otherwise, addresses the point I was actually making. That gun-rights have been STRENGTHENED in the last 30-40 years, not weakened. 

There is this perception that "liberals are going to take your guns away" every time there's an elections. Those voters are the slaves of the 1%, because they're buying in to this nonsense that "liberals" are on the cusp of "taking your guns". 

They're nowhere close.

We have people open-carrying semi-automatic rifles  at rallies and protests in 2020. You think that was happening in the 60s? 80s? No.

90% of gun control happens at the state level, and the trend has been pro-gun for a very long time. 

It's a myth - a fetish for some, and leverage with voters for others - that government is about to "take your guns", and yet it persists. And that myth is used to "enslave" (using your hyperbolic language) and scare a bunch of people into emotionally binding themselves to a particular political party.

NFA: It was a transfer tax that was prohibitively expensive for anyone not the 1%, so it effectively banned them if you were one of the poors who the elite were terrified of. The transfer tax was set at $200, which would be around $3.8k in todays money. So yes, it was a de facto ban. It was specifically drafted to keep certain guns out of certain hands. Those hands being the poor’a hands.

Also NFA: It was specifically designed to target pistols, which is why there are limitations on short barreled shotguns and rifles, as they were trying to preemptively close any loophole regarding pistols. Right before the bill was passed they removed the pistol ban, but kept the others. 
 

Also, states like WV tried to ban them for the same reason. The rich coal mine owner was scared ish-less by the unions, so they tried to ban them there. 
 

Regardless of what point you were trying to make on the whole, each individual point you were trying to make was wrong. 
 

Also yes they were carrying semi automatic rifles at protests in the 1960s. California specifically banned civilian ownership of the M1 carbine, a semi automatic rifle, because the Black Panthers kept bringing them to rallies and protests. 
 

Also yes states have been rolling back gun rights, so to say they haven’t is obtuse. Look how many states in the last few years have enacted "assault weapons” bans. 
 

Liberals absolutely can and will take away gun rights and they are actively doing it. It’s the same with conservatives who try and take away abortion rights. 
 

The other side can and absolutely will destroy your rights so they can placate their base. 

7 minutes ago, Bill said:

Also yes states have been rolling back gun rights, so to say they haven’t is obtuse. Look how many states in the last few years have enacted "assault weapons” bans. 

 

They're doing a bang-up job.

 

8 minutes ago, Bill said:

Liberals absolutely can and will take away gun rights and they are actively doing it. It’s the same with conservatives who try and take away abortion rights. 
 

The other side can and absolutely will destroy your rights so they can placate their base. 

Yes, there is a lot of support on the left for gun control. I never really argued that. They haven't been effective, and gun rights are incredibly strong in 2020. 

Gun control, when it comes to semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15, are also incredibly popular when the public is polled. MOST people would rather have MORE gun control, not less. But the courts have been very protective of the 2nd amendment.

FWIW I'm not even anti-gun. Frankly I would like to see more attention paid to proper training and responsible use of guns, something most gun owners I've spoken to feel similarly about (specially with regards to the NRA). And I think there is a good faith discussion that should be had about balancing public safety with gun control as it relates to certain kinds of weapons (semi-automatic rifles, etc.), but nobody wants to actually HAVE a good faith argument because everybody is dug-in on their own side. Every attempt at any sort of gun control results in a slipper-slope (fallacy) argument, and then a bunch of emotional pro-gun people run out to the store and buy up more weapons. 

You are a well informed and objective poster and I appreciate your responses. I attempt to educate myself on topics I don't have as much experience with (gun-toting members of my family aside), and from what I can gather very little of what I have said is actually wrong. I don't have a problem admitting if I'm wrong, but everything from all sides I can dig up indicates gun-rights are very strong in this country in 2020, despite all the news and hang-wringing over mass shootings the last decade.

The gun-rights lobby is incredibly powerful, and anybody who's not a democrat who even pays lip-service to "maybe" putting in some gun control measures is immediately cancelled by the right. 

33 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

They're doing a bang-up job.

 

Yes, there is a lot of support on the left for gun control. I never really argued that. They haven't been effective, and gun rights are incredibly strong in 2020. 

Gun control, when it comes to semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15, are also incredibly popular when the public is polled. MOST people would rather have MORE gun control, not less. But the courts have been very protective of the 2nd amendment.

FWIW I'm not even anti-gun. Frankly I would like to see more attention paid to proper training and responsible use of guns, something most gun owners I've spoken to feel similarly about (specially with regards to the NRA). And I think there is a good faith discussion that should be had about balancing public safety with gun control as it relates to certain kinds of weapons (semi-automatic rifles, etc.), but nobody wants to actually HAVE a good faith argument because everybody is dug-in on their own side. Every attempt at any sort of gun control results in a slipper-slope (fallacy) argument, and then a bunch of emotional pro-gun people run out to the store and buy up more weapons. 

You are a well informed and objective poster and I appreciate your responses. I attempt to educate myself on topics I don't have as much experience with (gun-toting members of my family aside), and from what I can gather very little of what I have said is actually wrong. I don't have a problem admitting if I'm wrong, but everything from all sides I can dig up indicates gun-rights are very strong in this country in 2020, despite all the news and hang-wringing over mass shootings the last decade.

The gun-rights lobby is incredibly powerful, and anybody who's not a democrat who even pays lip-service to "maybe" putting in some gun control measures is immediately cancelled by the right. 

That map looked a lot different in 2005. 
 

I don’t compromise when it comes to constitutional rights. No one should. there’s no good faith argument to be had when it involves a clearly defined constitutional right. You’re either right or wrong, and any restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional therefore it is wrong. 
 

14 hours ago, NOTW said:

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

🤮

I eat a few bites of freshly ground burger with salt as well haha. I got it from my grandma 

this is NOT a parody website. He did make the statement, stands by it, and the reporter writing the story was pretty much kissing his a**.
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsbtv.com/news/local/-some-white-people-may-have-to-die-uga-teaching-assistant-under-fire-for-facebook-post/908340952/%3foutputType=amp

The genuine confusion he has

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

 

 

poor thing

49 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

 

 

About time he got called out. 

53 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

 

 

The left eating their own.

He wanted a vacation anyway 

Add another month for sexism from having girls on trampolines. 

58 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

 

 

I was wondering when it was going to come up

Seemed like it was being ignored

The mob is coming for Joe Rogan (again) too because he laughed at something 9 years ago.

 

15 minutes ago, NOTW said:

He wanted a vacation anyway 

Add another month for sexism from having girls on trampolines. 

Hey now, that's just enjoying a national past time. 

13 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I was wondering when it was going to come up

Seemed like it was being ignored

I demand justice for Karl Malone!!!