I'm just curious who this politician is? Ron Paul has been out of politics for a number of years now.

Most "Republicans," who are in office, seem to love big government just as much as the people on the far left. The just have different social issues they wish to push on the other 80% that don't care and want to be left alone. Because outside of a few social issues they both are basically the same. Erosion of privacy, beholden to big donors, continuing wars, etc.

 

QFT, with the exception that the left has done a lot more pushing of social issues.

 

Meanwhile, red states be pushing abortion laws in flagrant violation of federal law like the Taliban.

 

We are at a point at which both of the majority parties have become focused on legislating their own unique version of morality, rather than protecting liberty.

 

This. So much.

 

IMHO, that was done for the specific purpose of bringing a case to SCOTUS. While I think it was not politically astute as far as timing, I do think abortion, and marriage, belong to the States. This may force SCOTUS to address the issue.

And that one issue pales in comparison to the social agenda the left has pushed for decades, largely with success. Most on the right don't really give a **** what consenting adults do with/to each other in private. We do disagree with an agenda to normalize behavior that is far outside the social norm.

 

The problem comes in your last sentence, what is outside the social norm?

That typically involves biblical quotes on what an adult should or should be not allowed to.

 

Precisely. In Genesis 19, Lot engaged in sexual congress with his DAUGHTERS, not with his SONS. Thus, we can infer that homosexual incest is not biblical, whereas heterosexual incest is.

(I'm not sure how much further off the rails this thread can be driven, as there are no obvious references to firearms in the Old Testament.)

 

although you could easy argue that all the anti abortion laws are protecting the liberty of the innocent...

 

This comment casts a spotlight on one of the reasons why productive dialogue between persons at opposite extremes of that specific argument is impossible.

Your remark seems to presuppose that a fetus in utero is a sentient being which has rights and liberties.

An opposing argument would posit that, prior to some point prior to (or equal to) birth, said fetus is not a sentient being.

The science which surrounds this debate would seem to call for an answer which lies somewhere between these two extremes. Specifically, that neurological activity which is consistent which consciousness develops at around week 25.



It's not clear to me how any of the aforementioned is relevant to a discussion of gun-ownership, the second amendment, etc. The laws of all 50 US states have minimum age-limits for the purchasing / ownership of firearms and ammunition, and none of these limits are so low as to include unborn fetuses. This is not generally considered to be a controversial subject.

 

In what may actually be a post which is relevant to the thread title, it it turns out that, in Italy anyway, you aren't allowed to posses air to air missiles.

Italian police seize missile and **** paraphernalia from suspected extremist fighters

By Kayla Epstein
July 16 at 10:21 AM



Police in Italy recovered **** paraphernalia, guns and a missile during a Monday operation that was part of a year-long investigation of “Italian fighters with extreme ideologies.”

One of the three suspects taken into custody had been flagged for trying to sell an air-to-air missile that was located in the northern Italian city of Pavia, authorities said in their announcement. The weapon did not have an explosive, police say, but was still usable. Authorities also found assault rifles, bayonets, pistols and nearly 1,000 cartridges and other munitions.

Turin Police Commissioner Giuseppe De Matteis called the raid “a significant seizure, with few precedents in Italy,” France 24 television reported. He added that “we have some idea about what the seized equipment could be used for but will not speculate.”
(etc)

Full article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...mist-fighters/

 

A hot cup of coffee is more dangerous than that missile.

 

Depends on whether 'explosive' means warhead, or propellant, or both.

 

https://www.thelocal.it/20190716/ita...s-on-far-right
I love the narrative... "combat ready"... just make some **** up. It even says later in the article: The missile was "without explosive charge, but re-armable by people specialised in the field," police said.

^If you tossed that missile into a fire, it would simply burn. There would be no explosion, no violence, just a lot of smoke.

The propellant in the single-stage is probably 1.4Class and cannot be ignited without a very specific electrical charge AFTER quite a few safety mechanisms are also activated (or deactivated). You can't just stick a 12volt lead into the tailpipe and fire it off.

Also, modern missile warheads probably don't work the way you think they do unless you're a total geek like me and have a background. In general, warheads are almost impossible to detonate accidentally, and extremely "safe" from incidental detonation unless you possess the rest of the actual weapon system the thing was designed to work with... in this case, the Mirage F1 that was designed to carry it... so much for "still usable" without the one make/model of fighter jet that can carry it.

 

Serious question: How did the 1994 "assault weapon" ban prevent you from protecting your family, property or the ability to hunt?

 

It didn't affect my ability to hunt because I do not hunt. It did however place limits on my choices for how I might choose to defend myself, my family, my property, or my country.

Please tell me specifically, how the assault weapons ban prevented crime? Not having done any specific research this morning, I would simply be guessing that most convenience stores and individuals who may have been robbed with a firearm we're not being accosted by an individual with an assault weapon.

 

It did not markedly impact gun-related homicides. What did impact was the number of mass shootings and the number of people killed/injured in those mass shooting. Which is what the national debate revolves around at the moment.

Spare me the "I need an AR with 100 rounds to protect muh house" BS. I asked this same question to my Deputy Sheriff brother. He couldn't answer it, all he came up with is "I need muh guns against the gubmint"
Just like you couldn't specifically elucidate how impacted you beyond "muh choice"

 

It's impacted the number of mass shootings? I don't believe that's the case.

It is far easier to sneak a handgun into a crowded area undetected then a big black scary rifle. It is also easier to manipulate a handgun in close quarters. Is also easier to conceal a large number as pistol rounds than a large number of rifle rounds do to the difference in size and weight.

But image is everything. Some unhinged goober trying to make a point is either going to use whatever he can find at hand or whatever he thinks looks the coolest. PMafia hit men were famous for using a 22 pistol to the back of the head for executions because it kills you just as dead and doesn't make a lot of noise or mess.

But I will argue if there is an angry mob in your yard that wants your resources because they have none after a disaster and you are the only one who prepared, I'd rather have a big scary looking one. It makes it less likely you would have to use it. Nobody wins if you have to use it. But if it keeps your wife and daughter from being raped and killed and all of your food and resources stolen, a man's got to do what a man's got to do. But I'd rather not.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ooting-deaths/

See, I'm even using a source against me and still the best they could come up with was, "Well, the ban, and uh, shootings and casualties were lower, and uhhhhh, yeah, just a coincidence."

And then of course, you go back to a bunch of hypothetical scenarios to defend your point. Why do you need hypothetical's if you have an easily defensible point?

I'm not arguing for confiscation or no guns or anything like that, I'm saying let's be reasonable. Your response is "rape, murder, apocalypse."