LordRahl2

"The good fight" "Across the World" You are brainwashed aren't you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I have enjoyed your squirming. Sad that it must end.

Very mature Roz.

Are you really confused about how parliamentary elections work?

Is it a personal fetish or what Roz?

Thought you might enjoy this.

Naw, it was a natural re-ordering at the time. Tea party! Please CG, you were never pro Tea Party. That was not Paul at all. Really I just wanted to throw the France joke in.

Actually you could say the Boston Tea party was not a wrench in the system but a natural reordering. Since you claim Trump is a wrench in the system that would imply a major disordering. So name a positive.

With the help of the French. So that isn't happening again.

With a war.

The establishment is incapable of turning on one of its own? That would be new. Yes, wrenches tossed into history have a habit of turning out well. Like when...well never.

First, Hitler as elected. If you need a class on how Weimar republic worked then go take a class. As to this: Garbage. Guns were widely available and no revolution was initiated against Hitler. He took away the Jews guns along with all their other property. And how did thise armed Warsaw Jews fare? In a democracy its easier to create a totalitarian regime when you elect one into power. Guns nor the removal of them had anything to do with Hitler or what he did.

Ahhh "anti-establishment". So he stands for nothing...just not some vauge thing.

I am pretty sure he was wishy washy on the old Iraq war. But he now favors the new one. So mostly opposite your stated world view. He does not say much so its easy to stay on message. The glorious Ronn Paul said things of substance. Again, not a CG staple. "I am a libertarian but I never supported free trade..." So you never were a libertarian. k. Again, counter to previous CG stuff. @Compensation, libertarians have a different prescription. "Trump wants to support American Business. Trump wants to reduce regulation and taxation." Emmmm, hard to say those things with confidence. Absolutely not a Reagan republican. Anyway, most business relies on trade and he is against free trade. Again. No Paul. Not even close. "Trump wants to build a border wall which seems like a fantastic idea to stop the flood into the labor market." I thought he was pro business. Anyway, libs are generally not opposed to immigration.

Explain how you can intellectually leap from a libertarian to the incoherence known as Trump CG.

In 1938 Hitler disarmed Jews in German, long after the Nazis had consolidated total power and long after they had subjugated German Jews, taking not just their guns, but their citizenship, businesses, livelihoods homes, and most other possessions. Their guns were unable to save them. What about the Jews with guns in Warsaw, Paris, Prague? Generally, Hitler only took guns from Jews (and gypsies etc.) He gave them to everyone else.

Oh sweet baby jesus.

Probably, I have been super busy for the last 2 days so have been on mobile. Generic rifle ammo is more expensive than generic handgun ammo.

An interesting point. Wrong I think though. He feeds off of crowds, so he says what he thinks people in his immediate audience want. I do not think he is intelligent enough to retard either his speaking or his action with a broader goal (what is best for the electorate or what is best for the country). By far the most dangerous option is Trump "going fully through with his proposed policies". More likely by far is a relative shut down to the mechanics of government which is very meh to just bad.

5.56 and 9m is an apples to apples comparison. Both are standard NATO issue. That is why I picked them. I can come up with innumable examples of less common rounds to refute your silliness. The fact remains that handgun ammo is cheaper.

Actually, people with those rare thinking brains probably know that reducing the supply of something generally reduces its availability to criminals and law abiding citizens. It is also silly to argue that those laws are ineffective by pointing out that the banned things were not used. How does an absence of high capacity military grade weaponry reduce law-abiding citizens power? They have power via the ballot box. Sounds like you are using empty rhetoric to blow things out of proportion.

I can get 1k rounds of 9mm for 150-200$. I can get 1k rounds of 5.56 for 300-400$. So yeah? no.

God I hate this forum system. Click one button and lose a tldr. What is the point of your link(s). Page 38 is a pic of the load assist that nobody uses (you want to mix tracers with your ball). The other is a SoW which has little to no bearing on anything. Your list: none of those items are compelling for home defense. In brief (I had more in my previous reply): -I do not need a red dot at 10 meters. The bulk of an assault rifle completely negates this "advantage". -False. Recoil varies among all classes of firearm and is not a huge discriminator in the normal range tbh. -The bulk of an assault rifle completely negates this "advantage". -False. Ammo availability and cost is better for handguns actually. Don't make assumptions. Did you read the link from the Institute of Medicine or just cherry pick on fact? You should really read it - it basically refutes your argument. Nukes. I gave you a list of examples of what high capacity mags are like: Some people like to use x for recreation. X is or should be illegal. Yet criminals still, or would, purchase x for sale or make it themselves. This does not lead us to a logical conclusion that x should be legal. x could be: meth, nukes, modified ammo, child pornography, high capacity mags, etc. So if gun laws are ineffective why do you care so much? But are they ineffective? As you say most mass shooting happen with lower capacity mags and guns. You could pretend this is because those were selected over the equally available high capacity mags. Or you could conclude that the high capacity mags were unavailable and hence the laws reduced the casualty rate. You assume one over the other with no apparent evidence. So I will just assume it is the latter and that the laws were effective although limited in scope and hence limited in impact.

Instability introduced into the system by a radical shift in the US policy of balancing power. This is vastly more influential and dangerous than a return to cold war lite. Really, professionals are united in this opinion. The only fear of a Clinton presidency is fear mongering spread around second and third tier alt-right websites.

A trump presidency is far more likely, though stull unlikely, to result in some form of nuclear exchange.