I’m ready to compromise

#201
#201
AM64 said:
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”


The guys inside the Alamo would probably have disagreed.

By the way, I did read your earlier comment about missing your original intent. I had eye surgery last week, and for whatever reason haven't felt quite on the same page as everybody else since. I'll try to catch up. :)
Click to expand...

The post that you replied to here was about the ruling against sawed off shotguns because they had no use in a militia. They were still looking at the militia at that time the same way the FF did in that citizens should be armed to protect the country. By that reasoning, I should be able to own a fully automatic weapon without all the BS redtape.
 
#205
#205
I was just glad to see SOMETHING that didn’t just list “we want this gun and this gun and this accessory and these magazines”

Trying to address eliminating (it’s a goal) school shootings without addressing the school buildings and active protection there of is absolutely idiotic.
 
#210
#210
luthervol said:
We are all to aware of how many times the current laws did not work. What we fail to consider and can never truly know is how many times the laws DID work.
Click to expand...

The law had a chance this time given its level of involvement even up to when he decided to legally go buy a gun which is ironic in and of itself. If he was dead set on a banned weapon he's buying one without the ever watchful but failing enforcement knowing he even had it. The fact it was legal was another missed chance.

Of course your not gonna go there because the focus is on a new law and another step toward the ultimate goal you can't even reach. And couldn't be even close to being enforced if it was. If we can catch 1 out of 1000 speeders....
 
#211
#211
NorthDallas40 said:
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I think we’ve found the issue. You’ve got some really really bad data. I looked it up. Reagan is consistently 2nd only behind JFK. And if he went two full terms I think history would have judged him differently.
Click to expand...

The greatest US presidents ranked, according to political scientists - Business Insider

JFK - 16, Reagan - 9, Obama - 8

Leadership - Rating The Presidents - Washington To Clinton | The Choice 2004 | FRONTLINE | PBS

Reagan - 25, Clinton - 20 (pre-Obama)

Trump comes in last in expert presidential rankings survey - POLITICO

Obama moved from 18th in 2014, when the survey was last conducted, to 8th in the current survey. Reagan jumped from 11th to 9th. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, fell from 8th to 13th — perhaps as a result of heightened attention to sexual misconduct in the midst of the #MeToo movement.

Trump came in dead last.
 
#213
#213
05_never_again said:
Those presidential rankings are some of the dumbest and most biased things ever created.

Presidents are defined by what happens during their terms, good or bad, and they do little if anything to influence it.

Bill Clinton is thought of as a good President because he was President during a time of great economic prosperity, innovations in technology that led to huge increases in productivity, and Baby Boomers being in their prime earning years. Did Bill Clinton personally have anything to do with this? If he had been President from 1977 until 1980, he'd be thought of as a more charismatic Jimmy Carter.

I was telling people on the day he was elected that Obama was likely to be a 2-term President because, in all likelihood, he'd take the oath of office at or near a bottom in the economy. Dubya fell into that same category, as did Reagan. I've been saying Trump is likely to be a 1-term President, not because of Russia, but because he took the oath of office at or near a top in the economy. That same thing happened to Dubya's dad. He lost in 1992 despite a decisive Persian Gulf War vistory because the economy fell into a recession late in his term.
Click to expand...
I agree to a large extent. That's why I find it so funny when people talk about Reagan as being some kind of great president. He presided over the allusion of a good economy built on the explosion of national, and even more significantly, personal debt.
 
#215
#215
luthervol said:
The greatest US presidents ranked, according to political scientists - Business Insider

JFK - 16, Reagan - 9, Obama - 8

Leadership - Rating The Presidents - Washington To Clinton | The Choice 2004 | FRONTLINE | PBS

Reagan - 25, Clinton - 20 (pre-Obama)

Trump comes in last in expert presidential rankings survey - POLITICO

Obama moved from 18th in 2014, when the survey was last conducted, to 8th in the current survey. Reagan jumped from 11th to 9th. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, fell from 8th to 13th — perhaps as a result of heightened attention to sexual misconduct in the midst of the #MeToo movement.

Trump came in dead last.
Click to expand...

A) I thought we were taking modern day presidents in that category it’s JFK then Reagan. When you start bringing in Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc... Reagan obviously wouldn’t be 2nd. So don’t even try your usual backtracking **** on that.

B) your statement about not having a decent president over 70 is thus incorrect. And your statement that Reagan was below Obama showed up in NO poll unless you’re talking the worst one polls.


YOU’RE WRONG!!!!!! AGAIN!!!!!!!

Look in modern day presidents tab.

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
#216
#216
NorthDallas40 said:
A) I thought we were taking modern day presidents in that category it’s JFK then Reagan. When you start bringing in Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc... Reagan obviously wouldn’t be 2nd. So don’t even try your usual backtracking **** on that.

B) your statement about not having a decent president over 70 is thus incorrect. And your statement that Reagan was below Obama showed up in NO poll unless you’re talking the worst one polls.


YOU’RE WRONG!!!!!! AGAIN!!!!!!!

Look in modern day presidents tab.

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

How pathetic can you be? I never said modern president. I proved your point completely wrong and your defense is to accuse me of backtracking....priceless. Once again, I overestimated you.

There have been two presidents take office at the age of 70+, Reagan and Trump. I made my statement purposefully. The inability to
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#217
#217
luthervol said:
www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2]The greatest US presidents ranked, according to political scientists - Business Insider[/B]

JFK - 16, Reagan - 9, Obama - 8

Leadership - Rating The Presidents - Washington To Clinton | The Choice 2004 | FRONTLINE | PBS

Reagan - 25, Clinton - 20 (pre-Obama)

Trump comes in last in expert presidential rankings survey - POLITICO

Obama moved from 18th in 2014, when the survey was last conducted, to 8th in the current survey. Reagan jumped from 11th to 9th. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, fell from 8th to 13th — perhaps as a result of heightened attention to sexual misconduct in the midst of the #MeToo movement.

Trump came in dead last.
Click to expand...

NorthDallas40 said:
A) I thought we were taking modern day presidents in that category it’s JFK then Reagan. When you start bringing in Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc... Reagan obviously wouldn’t be 2nd. So don’t even try your usual backtracking **** on that.

B) your statement about not having a decent president over 70 is thus incorrect. And your statement that Reagan was below Obama showed up in NO poll unless you’re talking the worst one polls.


!!YOU’RE WRONG!!!! AGAIN!!!!!!!

Look in modern day presidents tab.

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Could you be any more wrong?

I provided a link. Obama 8 Reagan 9.

And then you say....YOU"RE WRONG!!!!!!AGAIN!!!!!!

I swear, you can't make this stuff up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#218
#218
luthervol said:
The greatest US presidents ranked, according to political scientists - Business Insider

JFK - 16, Reagan - 9, Obama - 8

Leadership - Rating The Presidents - Washington To Clinton | The Choice 2004 | FRONTLINE | PBS

Reagan - 25, Clinton - 20 (pre-Obama)

Trump comes in last in expert presidential rankings survey - POLITICO

Obama moved from 18th in 2014, when the survey was last conducted, to 8th in the current survey. Reagan jumped from 11th to 9th. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, fell from 8th to 13th — perhaps as a result of heightened attention to sexual misconduct in the midst of the #MeToo movement.

Trump came in dead last.
Click to expand...

Any survey that ranks BHOzo ahead of Reagan is a freaking joke. What was the criteria?..... being such a p***y that's its stunning?.... passing socialist legislation? World apology tour?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#224
#224
82_VOL_83 said:
The post that you replied to here was about the ruling against sawed off shotguns because they had no use in a militia. They were still looking at the militia at that time the same way the FF did in that citizens should be armed to protect the country. By that reasoning, I should be able to own a fully automatic weapon without all the BS redtape.
Click to expand...

I agree with your analysis. I used an M14 in the Army, and the NG (militia, if you please) was issued them too. The interesting thing that was lost on me until just recently is that because the M14 was designed to fire fully automatic you can't own one because it is classified as a machine gun. The courts create a lot of slippery slopes when they play around the definitions to solve politically generated sticky issues.

The next interesting story is that the Army is more or less recreating the M14 because the M16 and variants can't deal with body armor at longer ranges. Since the M14 had no surplus market as a "machine gun" the receivers were cut in half to destroy the weapons. However, the M14 (machine gun or not) would be a poor choice for any of the recent mass shooters - too bulky and terrible recoil.
 
#225
#225
Is an M1A National Match not a semi auto equivalent of the M14? Isn’t select fire the only difference? If you wanted to own one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top