Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,426
#2,426
zhangliao04 said:
I say vote for whoever you want to be president. That's the reason for voting. Not to pick someone so that someone else doesn't get in. This is one reason why having political parties is just a dumb idea to have in the first place...
Click to expand...

Citizens and politicians are more concerned about their specific party winning just to make sure the other party doesn't. Whatever happened to being bipartisan and working to get our country out of this hole we're in? Is making sure our country is the best it can be too much to ask? Apparently so
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,427
#2,427
volgirl99 said:
Citizens and politicians are more concerned about their specific party winning just to make sure the other party doesn't. Whatever happened to being bipartisan and working to get our country out of this hole we're in? Is making sure our country is the best it can be too much to ask? Apparently so
Click to expand...

Never was a thing.
 
#2,429
#2,429
Darth_Shiveman said:
In theory, maybe. But if you're in a state that is always gonna go red or blue, it literally won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. A vote for a 3rd party can at least contribute to that party potentially contribute to that party getting public campaign funding assistance.

Because let's be honest here, if you're in Tennessee, Bama, or Georgia, you could vote 20 times for a democrat or a 3rd party candidate and the state is still gonna come out red.
Click to expand...

No, not true for GA. It is expected to be tight. It's increasingly blue and may go that way in 2016. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/georgia-democratic/
 
#2,430
#2,430
volgirl99 said:
Citizens and politicians are more concerned about their specific party winning just to make sure the other party doesn't. Whatever happened to being bipartisan and working to get our country out of this hole we're in? Is making sure our country is the best it can be too much to ask? Apparently so
Click to expand...

I know there will be some people on here that will disagree with my choice, but I will just use him as an example. Dr. Carson, I believe, got less numbers in the polls than what he should have gotten. I had talks with quite a few people who would say that the candidate who supported their viewpoints/lifestyles/thoughts-on-country-leadership/etc. the most was Dr. Carson. However, many of those people would then say "He will never get elected" and decided to vote for another candidate just because they thought he would never get elected. I can't describe how asinine that sounds to me because then you are not using the system with the main reason why it was used in the first place: to vote for the person you want to see in office that supports your viewpoints the most. But, that is just my opinion and everyone can use their own votes how they want. It just baffles me how some out there who think they are not allowing the system to cheat them are actually being cheated by the system in a different way.
 
#2,431
#2,431
There is something fundamentally wrong with voting for the lesser of two evils no matter how you rationalize it. I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror if I ever did that.

And I can barely look at myself in the mirror now.:D
 
#2,432
#2,432
Catbone said:
No, not true for GA. It is expected to be tight. It's increasingly blue and may go that way in 2016. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/georgia-democratic/
Click to expand...

Not saying you're wrong, but all your link shows is that Hillary Clinton was a shoe in to beat Bernie in the Georgia primary. It doesn't speak towards the actual presidential election.

If Nate Silver is projecting that Georgia could be a nail biter, then I'd accept that of course since he's really good at that type of thing. But as it stands, in the past 4 elections republicans have always won by 5 percent of the vote to double digits every time. And the closer of those 4 had a racial element that this election won't have. The last time Georgia went blue, the democratic candidate (Clinton, ironically) didn't even win a majority of votes in the state, just a plurality.
 
#2,433
#2,433
Ok enough is enough.

As a longtime NRA member, lifelong far right republican, owner of nearly 3 digits of firearms I am now 100% ready to ban all Assault type weapons from the general public.

My right to shoot an AR weapon doesn't add value to my life nor does it add protection from these idiots. I am ready to make them much harder to get them into the wrong hands

And don't give me the bs About how they aren't any more deadly than other firearms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,436
#2,436
BruinVol said:
Ok enough is enough.

As a longtime NRA member, lifelong far right republican, owner of nearly 3 digits of firearms I am now 100% ready to ban all Assault type weapons from the general public.

My right to shoot an AR weapon doesn't add value to my life nor does it add protection from these idiots. I am ready to make them much harder to get them into the wrong hands

And don't give me the bs About how they aren't any more deadly than other firearms.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not. Sorry, terrorist will always be able to get whatever weapon they want. They could have killed the same number of people with three or for handguns with hi capacity mags. If there was a concealed carry permit holder in the crowd they could have possibly taken them out.

Banning these ar 15 rifles will not solve anything and it accomplishes exactly what the criminals and terrorist want.
 
#2,437
#2,437
BruinVol said:
Ok enough is enough.

As a longtime NRA member, lifelong far right republican, owner of nearly 3 digits of firearms I am now 100% ready to ban all Assault type weapons from the general public.

My right to shoot an AR weapon doesn't add value to my life nor does it add protection from these idiots. I am ready to make them much harder to get them into the wrong hands

And don't give me the bs About how they aren't any more deadly than other firearms.
Click to expand...

If this is true then you are a terrible NRA member. You should know that the AR-15 isn't a assault rifle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,438
#2,438
InVOLuntary said:
Well I'm not. Sorry, terrorist will always be able to get whatever weapon they want. They could have killed the same number of people with three or for handguns with hi capacity mags. If there was a concealed carry permit holder in the crowd they could have possibly taken them out.

Banning these ar 15 rifles will not solve anything and it accomplishes exactly what the criminals and terrorist want.
Click to expand...

It was a bar so I'm sure it was a gun free Zone. AKA target rich environment.
 
#2,439
#2,439
InVOLuntary said:
Well I'm not. Sorry, terrorist will always be able to get whatever weapon they want. They could have killed the same number of people with three or for handguns with hi capacity mags. If there was a concealed carry permit holder in the crowd they could have possibly taken them out.

Banning these ar 15 rifles will not solve anything and it accomplishes exactly what the criminals and terrorist want.
Click to expand...

You seriously want to suggest 3 handguns can shoot as many rounds in a short time as an AR15?

I understand the "fear" we are gun owners have with taking any rights away but enough is enough IMO with these specific type firearms
 
#2,440
#2,440
BruinVol said:
You seriously want to suggest 3 handguns can shoot as many rounds in a short time as an AR15?

I understand the "fear" we are gun owners have with taking any rights away but enough is enough IMO with these specific type firearms
Click to expand...

With a hi-cap mag, a pistol is a capable of firing at the same rate as any semi-automatic rifle (AR-15). One round for every trigger pull. As a owner with nearly triple digit firearms I would think you would know that.
 
#2,441
#2,441
BruinVol said:
You seriously want to suggest 3 handguns can shoot as many rounds in a short time as an AR15?

I understand the "fear" we are gun owners have with taking any rights away but enough is enough IMO with these specific type firearms
Click to expand...

You seriously think banning them will prevent terrorists from getting them? Murder is banned, that doesn't stop them from murdering. Guns were banned in that bar, that didn't stop them from bringing a gun to the bar. Banning something keeps it out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not murderers.
 
#2,442
#2,442
Fowdep said:
With a hi-cap mag, a pistol is a capable of firing at the same rate as any semi-automatic rifle (AR-15). One round for every trigger pull. As a owner with nearly triple digit firearms I would think you would know that.
Click to expand...

Unless the op has 3 hands surely you understand using 3 handguns would require more time with reloading, changing guns, and changing mags than an AR?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,443
#2,443
jave36 said:
You seriously think banning them will prevent terrorists from getting them? Murder is banned, that doesn't stop them from murdering. Guns were banned in that bar, that didn't stop them from bringing a gun to the bar. Banning something keeps it out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not murderers.
Click to expand...

No I don't and your post is why for the longest I would argued your side of this topic but now i willing to change my stance Because I believe if I takes these type weapons out of just one shooters hands it's worth.

It won't stop these kinds of things i agree with you on but if it does lesson the casualties just once it's worth it IMO. The AR adds no real value to gun shooting/owning rights.

Yes that's a personal stance and i respect the other side very much because that is where I was a few years ago
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,444
#2,444
BruinVol said:
Unless the op has 3 hands surely you understand using 3 handguns would require more time with reloading, changing guns, and changing mags than an AR?
Click to expand...

Standard AR-15 mag carries 30 rounds and most pistols hi-cap cap mags 20-100 rounds. One pistol with 100 round drum mag could in theory fire more rounds than an AR-15 with a standard mag.
 
#2,445
#2,445
BruinVol said:
You seriously want to suggest 3 handguns can shoot as many rounds in a short time as an AR15?

I understand the "fear" we are gun owners have with taking any rights away but enough is enough IMO with these specific type firearms
Click to expand...

Three glocks with high cap mags could easily kill that many people. Not to mention reloading is not that difficult either. If hadn't been a gun free Zone a cc permit holder had been in the crowd it could have lessened the impact. The shooter knew if was a gun free zone.

Are you for banning all semi autos? Are you for just banning clip style magazines? Are you for banning ball bearings used in the Boston attacks?
 
#2,446
#2,446
Fowdep said:
Standard AR-15 mag carries 30 rounds and most pistols hi-cap cap mags 20-100 rounds. One pistol with 100 round drum mag could in theory fire more rounds than an AR-15 with a standard mag.
Click to expand...

There are 100 round mags for ARs correct?


To answer Invol post. I would be fine with banning high mag capacities
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,447
#2,447
BruinVol said:
There are 100 round mags for ARs correct?


To answer Invol post. I would be fine with banning high mag capacities
Click to expand...

I can agree with a mag cap but banning one type of semiautomatic weapon and not other makes no sense to me. Also if there is a will, there will be a way. These type of attacks will be carried out regardless of the laws in place. Gun free Zones only make a target rich environment where law abiding, gun carrying American can't defend themselves.
 
#2,448
#2,448
Fowdep said:
I can agree with a mag cap but banning one type of semiautomatic weapon and not other makes no sense to me. Also if there is a will, there will be a way. These type of attacks will be carried out regardless of the laws in place. Gun free Zones only make a target rich environment where law abiding, gun carrying American can't defend themselves.
Click to expand...

We aren't far apart in thinking. These things aren't stopping shamefully but maybe we can lesson the blow. High mags might be a way to do that
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,449
#2,449
BruinVol said:
We aren't far apart in thinking. These things aren't stopping shamefully but maybe we can lesson the blow. High mags might be a way to do that
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we are. I believe that a mag cap would only lesson the damage to an extent. I'm a believer in banning gun free zones. Like someone said earlier in this thread, one concealed carrier could have stopped this tragedy sooner. There's a reason most of the shootings happen in gun free zones. It because the aggressor knows he will have zero to no resistance until law enforcement shows up.
 
#2,450
#2,450
Fowdep said:
I'm not sure we are. I believe that a mag cap would only lesson the damage to an extent. I'm a believer in banning gun free zones. Like someone said earlier in this thread, one concealed carrier could have stopped this tragedy sooner. There's a reason most of the shootings happen in gun free zones. It because the aggressor knows he will have zero to no resistance until law enforcement shows up.
Click to expand...

I am for banning gun free zones as well. I think it's possible to be left and also right on gun Control issues
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top