Trump Bans Bump Stocks

[kahless]

Oh, well, that makes sense. Take names and make a list, but make no effort to screen anyone. Just assume John Bolton and George Soros can't afford to send anyone to a meet up to get their Official Number.

What do you think happens at meet-ups and canvassing. At least it stops you since you would have to cross the border and worry about ICE. Ultimately your trolling would be limited to the non-supporter forum.

[acptulsa]

What do you think happens at meet-ups and canvassing. At least it stops you since you would have to cross the border and worry about ICE. Ultimately your trolling would be limited to the non-supporter forum.

I know what happens at meetups and during canvassing. It doesn't involve handing out super secret passwords to everyone who wanders by.

[CCTelander]

I know what happens at meetups and during canvassing. It doesn't involve handing out super secret passwords to everyone who wanders by.

What? You never got your secret decoder ring?

[acptulsa]

What? You never got your secret decoder ring?

Went through a whole case if Cracker Jacks, but the closest we ever got was X-ray glasses.

But I'm not complaining. They help me see right through kahless' attempt to create a Rand Paul Stazi.

[TheCount]

Did you read the forum mission? Do you even know what this forum is for?

How is it authoritarian in a grass roots organizing forum for political candidates that designated organizers approve accounts to confirm they are real activists rather someone sitting in a think tank somewhere or overseas.

This much is obvious and your opposition to it for a very public political candidates shows you are not who you say you are here.

I find it very strange that someone who is not a supporter wants to judge others as being insufficiently supportive.

[acptulsa]

I find it very strange that someone who is not a supporter wants to judge others as being insufficiently supportive.

But he is a supporter!

Unless someone's pissing him off by complaining about how much he sucks the other candidate's dick. Then he's a victim.

I guess he's not coordinated enough to be a supporter and a victim at the same time. I wonder if he can walk and chew gum?

[not.your.average.joe]

Everyone already agrees to draw the line SOMEWHERE. The question is where should it be drawn. Or do you think people should be able to buy chemical weapons, abrams tanks, rocket launchers and nuclear weapons without any regulations at all?

The obvious line is infantry weapons, anything more restrictive can't be argued for without violating the point of the 2ndA, history might actually be on the side of larger weapons and ordinance since their equivalents were available to private citizens in the founders' time.
The only line I would draw is weapons of mass indiscriminate damage.

There we agree. There is no legitimate defensive use..and no moral justification.

I consider any attack on civilian targets to be criminal under any circumstance.
I am in full favor of Self Defense and community defense.

People need weapons to keep our government from taking away our rights. I think our government should not be able to keep or bear any arms we are not allowed to keep or bear. (If one person can't have them, then a group of people can't have them and officials with fine hats can't have them.) Since government can't constitutionally restrict the scope of arms we can keep and bear, I think it's up to the people to agree not to keep or bear weapons of mass indiscriminate damage, or even infantry weapons - and then hold our government to those standards or revolt if it refuses to agree.

Am I out of touch? Is there legislation saying that government may restrict our arms, and that groups of people approved by those restricting our arms may ignore those restrictions? I am still learning, developing my opinions and convictions.



Is this the right thread for my concerns? I only read the first 3 or 4 pages.

[acptulsa]

Is this the right thread for my concerns? I only read the first 3 or 4 pages.

Wise man.

People need weapons to keep our government from taking away our rights. I think our government should not be able to keep or bear any arms we are not allowed to keep or bear. (If one person can't have them, then a group of people can't have them and officials with fine hats can't have them.) Since government can't constitutionally restrict the scope of arms we can keep and bear, I think it's up to the people to agree not to keep or bear weapons of mass indiscriminate damage, or even infantry weapons - and then hold our government to those standards or revolt if it refuses to agree.

Am I out of touch? Is there legislation saying that government may restrict our arms, and that groups of people approved by those restricting our arms may ignore those restrictions? I am still learning, developing my opinions and convictions.

There surely is such legislation, and more on the way.

Are you out of touch? Probably. Does your idea have merit? Definitely! But take heart. Maybe your Official State Rand Paul Campaign Coordinator will let you have a nuclear-tipped ICBM or two.

Failing that, yes, I'm all for restricting weapons of mass destruction to the garbage heap of history. But like the gun control nuts, I am at a loss how to eliminate the thousands that already exist. I am certain, however, that restricting them to the generals and politicians--the most psychotic elements in our society--was not such a grand plan.

[Swordsmyth]

People need weapons to keep our government from taking away our rights. I think our government should not be able to keep or bear any arms we are not allowed to keep or bear. (If one person can't have them, then a group of people can't have them and officials with fine hats can't have them.) Since government can't constitutionally restrict the scope of arms we can keep and bear, I think it's up to the people to agree not to keep or bear weapons of mass indiscriminate damage, or even infantry weapons - and then hold our government to those standards or revolt if it refuses to agree.

Am I out of touch? Is there legislation saying that government may restrict our arms, and that groups of people approved by those restricting our arms may ignore those restrictions? I am still learning, developing my opinions and convictions.



Is this the right thread for my concerns? I only read the first 3 or 4 pages.

Wise man.



There surely is such legislation, and more on the way.

Are you out of touch? Probably. Does your idea have merit? Definitely! But take heart. Maybe your Official State Rand Paul Campaign Coordinator will let you have a nuclear-tipped ICBM or two.

Failing that, yes, I'm all for restricting weapons of mass destruction to the garbage heap of history. But like the gun control nuts, I am at a loss how to eliminate the thousands that already exist. I am certain, however, that restricting them to the generals and politicians--the most psychotic elements in our society--was not such a grand plan.

I would like to dis-invent WMDs but that genie can't be put back in the bottle, now that they exist MAD is required since nobody can trust anybody in geopolitics.
I don't like limiting them to governments but letting any idiot have them is worse in my opinion, WMDs are different from ordinary weapons.

[acptulsa]

I would like to dis-invent WMDs but that genie can't be put back in the bottle, now that they exist MAD is required since nobody can trust anybody in geopolitics.

Which is, of course, where gun control nuts go astray. They actually think they can get a genie back in the bottle.

I don't like limiting them to governments but letting any idiot have them is worse in my opinion, WMDs are different from ordinary weapons.

And there's the rub. Where do you draw the line between 'ordinary weapons' and 'different'? Some say single-shot muzzleloaders. Some say full auto. Some say tanks and artillery. Not many, but some.

No matter where you draw the line, everything above that line is something your friendly government, which loves you and wants you to be happy, is going to stockpile.

[enhanced_deficit]

Seems like other than extreme right wing of Israel Firster zionists/pro Syria intervention neocons camp, there is little genuine and sincere support left for Trump from his allies? Good part of GOP base still sees him as the "lesser evil" having stung by Obama but for for how long he will be able to keep "holding their noses" conservatives' support if he returned to his Schumer roots as some are predicting?




Donald Trump donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation
August 28th, 2016
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...on-foundation/

Gun owners turn on Donald Trump over plans to bring in tighter restrictions
'Out in the firearms community there is a great feeling of betrayal and abandonment,' says Colorado Sports Shooting Association's president
3 hours ago http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-gun-owners-control-florida-shooting-bump-stock-nra-latest-a8226461.html

[kahless]

But he is a supporter!

Unless someone's pissing him off by complaining about how much he sucks the other candidate's dick. Then he's a victim.

I guess he's not coordinated enough to be a supporter and a victim at the same time. I wonder if he can walk and chew gum?

More like below.

But he is a supporter!

I am just trying to piss him off by complaining since when I asked if I could suck Gunny's dick in 7/2015 he ignored me while he was taking offence that Kahless said Trump would be his second choice. I then felt victimized.

This is when I started launching my coordinated attacks, have been obsessed with him ever since and I still feel like a victim at the same time. I wonder if I can think rationally about my mental illness and chew gum?

[acptulsa]

More like below.

Awwwww... Did somebody talk about something besides the poor widdle attention whore...?

Well. Good thing you got this thread back on topic!

[kahless]

...

Maybe you should STFU about me and stop replying to all my posts so the thread can stay on topic.

[kahless]

Seems like other than extreme right wing of Israel Firster zionists/pro Syria intervention neocons camp, there is little genuine and sincere support left for Trump from his allies? Good part of GOP base still sees him as the "lesser evil" having stung by Obama but for for how long he will be able to keep "holding their noses" conservatives' support if he returned to his Schumer roots as some are predicting?

Donald Trump donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation
August 28th, 2016
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...on-foundation/

Gun owners turn on Donald Trump over plans to bring in tighter restrictions
'Out in the firearms community there is a great feeling of betrayal and abandonment,' says Colorado Sports Shooting Association's president
3 hours ago http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-gun-owners-control-florida-shooting-bump-stock-nra-latest-a8226461.html

President has made no formal commitment to his gun control measures and has yet to propose a legislative timetable.
...
Mr Paradis said: "Trump can propose anything he wants but it's got to get through two houses of Congress and the Supreme Court,"

Still a chance nothing comes from it just allot of talk. With Ivanka in his ear and his statements on guns going back to the 90s it is a cause of concern.

If something else dominates the news cycle all this will be forgotten in a few months.

[acptulsa]

Maybe you should STFU about me and stop replying to all my posts so the thread can stay on topic.

So you're saying you have the impulse control of a rattlesnake?

Got news. Tried that. You kept talking trash about me.

Still a chance nothing comes from it just allot of talk. With Ivanka in his ear and his statements on guns going back to the 90s it is a cause of concern.

If something else dominates the news cycle all this will be forgotten in a few months.

Oh, so now you notice he used to be a Democrat? You denied it continually two years ago.

[not.your.average.joe]

There surely is such legislation, and more on the way.

Nullification!

Failing that, yes, I'm all for restricting weapons of mass destruction to the garbage heap of history. But like the gun control nuts, I am at a loss how to eliminate the thousands that already exist. I am certain, however, that restricting them to the generals and politicians--the most psychotic elements in our society--was not such a grand plan.

I would like to dis-invent WMDs but that genie can't be put back in the bottle, now that they exist MAD is required since nobody can trust anybody in geopolitics.
I don't like limiting them to governments but letting any idiot have them is worse in my opinion, WMDs are different from ordinary weapons.

If I don't think society should have something, I am definitely not going to let my government have it. And if the government already has it, society needs a way of protecting itself against that government. I don't have an answer as to how. Private sector free market solution to countering/stopping nuclear weapons?

No matter where you draw the line, everything above that line is something your friendly government, which loves you and wants you to be happy, is going to stockpile.

A transparent government is necessary, we can get that through infiltration... easier said than done. I guess it's just a philosophical argument for now, until we can do something about it. A surge in the r3VO_|ution is in order.

[kahless]

So you're saying you have the impulse control of a rattlesnake?

Got news. Tried that. You kept talking trash about me.

STFU about me and stop replying to my posts then.

Oh, so now you notice he used to be a Democrat? You denied it continually two years ago.

If I did not know how this started and there was not this three year flame war I would think you simply got me mixed up with someone else.

I never denied that and you are simply making $#@! up to fit your narrative of me being some big Trump supporter here.

When all it was is evaluating policy both good and bad related to Trump in the 2016 Campaign Forum and that he would be my second choice.

[Swordsmyth]

Nullification!



If I don't think society should have something, I am definitely not going to let my government have it. And if the government already has it, society needs a way of protecting itself against that government. I don't have an answer as to how. Private sector free market solution to countering/stopping nuclear weapons?


A transparent government is necessary, we can get that through infiltration... easier said than done. I guess it's just a philosophical argument for now, until we can do something about it. A surge in the r3VO_|ution is in order.

If anyone comes up with a a way to get rid of WMDs let me know, until then there need to be as few of them as possible in as few hands as possible.

[acptulsa]

And if the government already has it, society needs a way of protecting itself against that government.

So far, government is succeeding in convincing most people that we don't need protection from it, and do need protection from each other. Is it insanity--or, at least, a state of denial? Or is it just media engineered ignorance?

The government can't achieve the tyranny it seeks without tipping its hand. The question is, will society protect itself from its government? History does not make me hopeful.

[TheCount]

Nullification!

They're working on that too. Immigrants are the bogey man that gets them support of those who might normally oppose a greater centralization of power at the Federal level.

[acptulsa]

They're working on that too. Immigrants are the bogey man that gets them support of those who might normally oppose a greater centralization of power at the Federal level.

That's about it.

Libertarians: Rand Paul will protect the Second and Tenth Amendments, which will protect our guns.

The media: Messicans and MOOSLIMS! BOOGITY BOOGITY!

Republican primary voters: Second best choice here I come!

[nikcers]

[kahless]

I find it very strange that someone who is not a supporter wants to judge others as being insufficiently supportive.

Where did you get the idea I am not a supporter? Never mind, getting your news about a member from some people here is about as accurate as your news about Ron Paul from the MSM.

[acptulsa]

You mean this not acptulsa's anti-Trump witch hunt thread or calling Ender a Muslim thread? Damn disappointing dude, disappointing.

Thanks for the kind offer, but if I had ever once in my life felt the need for a calling Ender a Muslim thread of my very own, one supposes I could have started one without your help.

[nikcers]

Trump wants to be the guy that passes gun control. This is something he truly believes in, plus if he passes gun control he will be succeeding where his predecessors failed, which is also very important to him. This is entirely the scariest part about Trumps pysche, he truly wants to be different, he truly thinks that the neocons just didn't know how to win, he truly thinks the previous presidents failed at gun control because they didn't perform well enough. Trump is not going to give up on this, just like he didn't give up on making sure Rand Paul wasn't the nominee.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I was very very very upset when TheDailyPaul was shut down. I had invested a lot of time there and here at RonPaulForums. I think now I see what he was worried about as this forum devolves into another medium for statists. I've never though I'd be for RonPaulForums being shut down but if there's no way for us to get "back to our roots" maybe that's what should happen. I hate to see this forum being abused daily...

[Ender]

I was very very very upset when TheDailyPaul was shut down. I had invested a lot of time there and here at RonPaulForums. I think now I see what he was worried about as this forum devolves into another medium for statists. I've never though I'd be for RonPaulForums being shut down but if there's no way for us to get "back to our roots" maybe that's what should happen. I hate to see this forum being abused daily...

I don't want it shut down- I just want to see members back to the basics in freedom & liberty.

[acptulsa]

I was very very very upset when TheDailyPaul was shut down. I had invested a lot of time there and here at RonPaulForums. I think now I see what he was worried about as this forum devolves into another medium for statists. I've never though I'd be for RonPaulForums being shut down but if there's no way for us to get "back to our roots" maybe that's what should happen. I hate to see this forum being abused daily...

There are times I've felt like a hostage to the good names of Ron and Rand Paul. I think if this is to be nothing but a playground for partisans and Trumpbots, the Pauls' good name should be taken off the place. Maybe Judge Nap didn't think twice about racists sullying Ron Paul by association. And maybe Bryan doesn't either. But it bothers me.

Liberty Forest? Sure, let that be a place for partisan divide and conquer bull$#@!. But keeping the Doctors Paul on the masthead as the place is allowed--nay, with somewhat liberal but very responsible people banned at the behest of Bolton spammers, encouraged--to go to weed and seed is just disgusting. I mean, 'a Muslim ban is libertarian'? Collectivist libertarianism? $#@!ing seriously?

No wonder lurking seldom puts me in a good mood any more.

Take the Paul name off the masthead. Clean it up or disassociate their good names from it. Seriously.

Call it verystablegeniusland.com.

[dannno]

I don't want it shut down- I just want to see members back to the basics in freedom & liberty.

The Libertarian Party is having a lot bigger problems sticking to their roots lately than this forum ever has.