Will Trump win again???

[deleted50478]

In the context of the latest research on quantum mechanics, astrophysics, biology, astronomy, this is the best time in the history of Christianity to be a well educated Christian.

The philosophical questions that religion tries to address are not "scientific" questions, but that doesn't make them an invalid pursuit of the mind.

Science can't answer philosophical questions, and philosophy can't answer scientific questions. Being in the middle is the most intriguing.

There is no logical path from quantum mechanics to Christianity. I’m guessing you are vaguely referring to some form of the teleological argument which has not only been thoroughly refuted, but wouldn’t lead to Christianity even if it were a valid argument, which again, it isn’t.

(Sorry everybody. I’ve taken this pretty far afield from the Trump election. In my mind it’s related because I find the Republicans opposition to the separation of State and Church repugnant, but it’s gone too far away from the question of this thread at this point.)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pgg]

Here's a other reason Trump could win again.

At yesterday's debate Beto said "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." And the audience cheered.

Beto's odds of being the nominee are nearly zero, but this is what the Democrats want. This is what they've been working for for many years. This is what is 2nd on their minds, behind Roe vs Wade, when they talk about Supreme Court appointees.

So-called reasonable common sense gun control, which is typically devoid of reason or sense, has never been anything more than a stepping stone to more restrictions and an eventual ban with confiscation and criminalization.

After yesterday it got a little bit harder for the Democrats to pretend that a high priority isn't to "repeal and replace" the 2nd Amendment. The other candidates are smart enough to not speak so openly, but of course it's what they also intend, long term.

 

[Steve_Zissou]

Here's a other reason Trump could win again.

At yesterday's debate Beto said "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." And the audience cheered.

Beto's odds of being the nominee are nearly zero, but this is what the Democrats want. This is what they've been working for for many years. This is what is 2nd on their minds, behind Roe vs Wade, when they talk about Supreme Court appointees.

So-called reasonable common sense gun control, which is typically devoid of reason or sense, has never been anything more than a stepping stone to more restrictions and an eventual ban with confiscation and criminalization.

After yesterday it got a little bit harder for the Democrats to pretend that a high priority isn't to "repeal and replace" the 2nd Amendment. The other candidates are smart enough to speak so openly, but of course it's what they also intend, long term.

And a GOP rep responded “My AR is waiting for you Robert Francis.” ****s getting crazy.

 

[GravelRider]

Here's a other reason Trump could win again.

At yesterday's debate Beto said "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." And the audience cheered.

Beto's odds of being the nominee are nearly zero, but this is what the Democrats want. This is what they've been working for for many years. This is what is 2nd on their minds, behind Roe vs Wade, when they talk about Supreme Court appointees.

So-called reasonable common sense gun control, which is typically devoid of reason or sense, has never been anything more than a stepping stone to more restrictions and an eventual ban with confiscation and criminalization.

After yesterday it got a little bit harder for the Democrats to pretend that a high priority isn't to "repeal and replace" the 2nd Amendment. The other candidates are smart enough to speak so openly, but of course it's what they also intend, long term.

So basically this election is going to be between a party that wants to take away your right to use guns vs a party that wants to take away your right to use your vagina?

What a wonderful country we live in...

 

[deleted162650]

So basically this election is going to be between a party that wants to take away your right to use guns vs a party that wants to take away your right to use your vagina?

What a wonderful country we live in...

Really sucks for those of us that love both guns and vaginas.

 

[deleted171991]

Here's a other reason Trump could win again.

At yesterday's debate Beto said "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." And the audience cheered.

Beto's odds of being the nominee are nearly zero, but this is what the Democrats want. This is what they've been working for for many years. This is what is 2nd on their minds, behind Roe vs Wade, when they talk about Supreme Court appointees.

So-called reasonable common sense gun control, which is typically devoid of reason or sense, has never been anything more than a stepping stone to more restrictions and an eventual ban with confiscation and criminalization.

After yesterday it got a little bit harder for the Democrats to pretend that a high priority isn't to "repeal and replace" the 2nd Amendment. The other candidates are smart enough to speak so openly, but of course it's what they also intend, long term.

I think you are a bit extreme on this (like most gun owners - kudos to the NRA). He was talking about your Kalashnikov (and other similar guns), not your hunting rifle or self-defense guns.

I'm sorry, but, other than to resist the government (and other childhood dreams), what the heck does one need such a gun for (except to defend oneself against idiots with similar guns)? And, if removing those guns from the market will prevent let's say a thousand deaths/year, is it not worth it?

They can't repeal the 2nd amendment, or they would have done it long ago. A lot of Americans who don't want big rifles on their streets would never support a full repeal.

 

[Mikkel]

So basically this election is going to be between a party that wants to take away your right to use guns vs a party that wants to take away your right to use your vagina?

What a wonderful country we live in...

Do Democrats support widespread abortion because they think it's a reasonable alternative to wearing condoms or taking birth control? That's disturbing.

 

[Mikkel]

There is no logical path from quantum mechanics to Christianity. I’m guessing you are vaguely referring to some form of the teleological argument which has not only been thoroughly refuted, but wouldn’t lead to Christianity even if it were a valid argument, which again, it isn’t.

Both coexist. Science can't refute religion, and religion can't refute science.

Existence of God is either real or it's not. Has there been a scientific experiment that had clarified this that I'm not aware of?

 

[Mikkel]

I think you are a bit extreme on this (like most gun owners - kudos to the NRA). He was talking about your Kalashnikov (and other similar guns), not your hunting rifle or self-defense guns.

I'm sorry, but, other than to resist the government (and other childhood dreams), what the heck does one need such a gun for (except to defend oneself against idiots with similar guns)? And, if removing those guns from the market will prevent let's say a thousand deaths/year, is it not worth it?

They can't repeal the 2nd amendment, or they would have done it long ago. A lot of Americans who don't want big rifles on their streets would never support a full repeal.

You're wrong, Beto is talking about an "assault weapons ban" which includes firearms used for self-defense and for hunting.

He wants to limit magazines to 10 rounds. Good luck taking on two people attacking you while you're under stress and can't shoot accurately.

You used all ten rounds and the attackers are still raping you? Tough luck, Beto knew better.

Meanwhile, he gets armed guards with no limits on what they can possess.

 

[Mikkel]

And, if removing those guns from the market will prevent let's say a thousand deaths/year, is it not worth it?

Is the murder of me, my wife, and my kids worth it to you to take my legal guns away?


Are you taking the firearms from law abiders or law breakers, or both?

I doubt the hoodlums in Chicago and Baltimore will give up their guns.

But poor mom and pop running a shop in the ghetto, or the peaceful family in the suburbs will be forced to hand theirs in.


How many lives are you "saving" but losing because of the loss of defensive firearm use?

 

[odyssey2]

Both coexist. Science can't refute religion, and religion can't refute science.

Existence of God is either real or it's not. Has there been a scientific experiment that had clarified this that I'm not aware of?

I mean, science CAN refute tenets of religion, such as the world being created in 7 days or giants living on earth before humans. But there's always going to be a gap in scientific knowledge that God can fill.

 

[PainDrain]

Do Democrats support widespread abortion because they think it's a reasonable alternative to wearing condoms or taking birth control? That's disturbing.

Republicans would rather you do none of these things and suffer the consequences of an unintended pregnancy.

 

[pgg]

I think you are a bit extreme on this (like most gun owners - nice NRA brainwash). They were talking about your Kalashnikov (and other similar guns), not your hunting rifle or self-defense guns.

I'm sorry, but, other than to resist the government (and other childhood dreams), what the heck does one need such a gun for?

No.

Lots of issues here.

First, I am the NRA. The NRA isn't some nebulous "gun industry" that is brainwashing and exploiting the masses for fun and profit. The NRA is its membership, people like me, who give them money to function as the most effective 2nd Amendment lobbying group in the country. And they are effective, or the gun control advocates would ignore them, not hate them.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about deer hunting or even self defense - though SCOTUS has of course held that those are among the core rights. Stop trying to reenter the discussion on hunters and "sportsmen".

That they are talking about Kalishnikovs and AR15s is exactly the issue. There is nothing special about them that can't also be said about ANY semiautomatic rifle. And any bolt action hunting rifle is a "sniper rifle". There is no logical sense to banning one weapon but not another. They are ALL weapons of war, made for the purpose of killing other human beings.

It's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. I don't have to justify why I own a weapon any more than I need to justify why I practice a particular religion.

 

[deleted171991]

It's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. I don't have to justify why I own a weapon any more than I need to justify why I practice a particular religion.

If certain religions would be strongly associated with killing people, you bet some people would want to regulate them, too.

When I look at the NRA I don't see you, the same way I don't confuse Republican politicians with the average republican. The former, in both cases, have a strong interest in brainwashing the latter, for power, not in representing them.

If there were no "us" versus "them", there would be no NRA, would it? The NRA is about as representative of its members as Hitler was of Germany.

 

[odyssey2]

I'm always curious what the current conservative thinking on how to prevent mass shootings is, other than "this is the price for living in a free society with the 2nd amendment." Increased mental health care (the only time they seem to care about this issue)? Increased government surveillance to prevent domestic terrorism? What?

 

[Mikkel]

Republicans would rather you do none of these things and suffer the consequences of an unintended pregnancy.

Wrong. Republicans would rather you not dismember and suck out the brains of unborn children.

 

[Mikkel]

I'm always curious what the current conservative thinking on how to prevent mass shootings is, other than "this is the price for living in a free society with the 2nd amendment." Increased mental health care (the only time they seem to care about this issue)? Increased government surveillance to prevent domestic terrorism? What?

It is impossible to prevent mass shootings, even if you seize the guns of every law abiding citizen.

Which calls into question your every premise of gun confiscation in the first place.



You can make an argument for any civil right, that if we do just this one thing, everything will be better. Why not monitor the phone conversations of every American to stop crime before it happens? Are you willing to give up that right?

 

[odyssey2]

It is impossible to prevent mass shootings, even if you seize the guns of every law abiding citizen.

Which calls into question your every premise of gun confiscation in the first place.



You can make an argument for any civil right, that if we do just this one thing, everything will be better. Why not monitor the phone conversations of every American to stop crime before it happens? Are you willing to give up that right?

I never said gun control was the only way to prevent mass shootings. So you're essentially saying nothing should be done to prevent this?

 

[odyssey2]

And if it isn't guns that's causing it, what is it? Why is the gun violence rate so astronomically high in the US compared to all other Western countries?

 

[Mikkel]

I never said gun control was the only way to prevent mass shootings. So you're essentially saying nothing should be done to prevent this?

No. You're not specific with "gun control".

For some, gun control means no ordinary citizen owning one.

For others, gun control means keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally insane.

I think criminals and the mentally insane have no right to own a gun, and it should be illegal for them to own them.


The rise of violence and destruction in any society is related to the collapse of societal institutions like marriage, two parent households, and local communities.

 

[Mikkel]

And if it isn't guns that's causing it, what is it? Why is the gun violence rate so astronomically high in the US compared to all other Western countries?

"Gun violence statistics" include suicide and lawful use of firearms by police and by citizens in self defense.

The overall stats you look at are not granular enough to understand the entire situation.

 

[odyssey2]

No. You're not specific with "gun control".

For some, gun control means no ordinary citizen owning one.

For others, gun control means keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally insane.

I think criminals and the mentally insane have no right to own a gun, and it should be illegal for them to own them.


The rise of violence and destruction in any society is related to the collapse of societal institutions like marriage, two parent households, and local communities.

But that doesn't explain why America's violence is so much worse than the rest of the Western world, unless you think western Europe is so far ahead of us in terms of "marriage and two parent households." The rates of marriage is declining everywhere in wealthy countries but violence isn't increasing. In fact, violence as a whole in the US has been on the decline since the early 90s, the only thing that has changed are the increase in mass shootings with high body counts. It's shocking to me that anyone's reaction to these massacres is just to shrug and accept it as the status quo.

 

[odyssey2]

"Gun violence statistics" include suicide and lawful use of firearms by police and by citizens in self defense.

The overall stats you look at are not granular enough to understand the entire situation.

Suicide still "counts" as gun violence, and the fact that police and citizens need to use guns for self defense in the first place still suggest a larger problem.

 

[agammaglobulin]

Lots of ‘feelings’ used when talking about taking away “assault” rifles. Mostly because the facts tell a different story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?noredirect=on

30-40,000 gun deaths a year. 70% are suicides (hard to shoot yourself with a rifle), 20% gang related/street violence homicides (vast majority pistols).

50 million-ish rifles (10-15 million AR15s) owned in the US. 500ish deaths per year from rifles. Almost 4X that many people die from blunt objects (bats, etc). Rifles are not the problem...

 

[odyssey2]

I think there are so many guns in the US (more guns than people) I'm not sure there's anything you could realistically do even if gun control was effective at preventing violence. I just don't know what the suggested alternatives are in preventing these massacres.

 

[GaseousClay]

Lots of ‘feelings’ used when talking about taking away guns. Mostly because the facts are VERY pro keeping guns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?noredirect=on

30-40,000 gun deaths a year. 70% are suicides (hard to shoot yourself with a rifle), 20% gang related/street violence homicides (vast majority pistols).

50 million-ish rifles (10-15 million AR15s) owned in the US. 500ish deaths per year from rifles. Almost 4X that many people die from blunt objects (bats, etc). Rifles are not the problem...

Only issue is that they are the weapon of choice for mass shooting so this debate will never go away.

 

[agammaglobulin]

Op-Ed: We have studied every mass shooting since 1966. Here's what we've learned about the shooters

Perpetrators of mass shootings have a lot in common. Understanding that could help prevent future violence.

www.latimes.com

Interesting analysis of mass shooters and possible changes to prevent more in the future.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Suicide still "counts" as gun violence, and the fact that police and citizens need to use guns for self defense in the first place still suggest a larger problem.

I don't really get this one. You know there are bad people out there that want to do bad things, right? You think that someone who wants to kill you is going to listen when you try to reason with them?
I don't own a gun, but I am glad that there are good people out there who do. I feel safer knowing that some in my circle are concealed carrying. I also like it that the criminals don't have any idea who might be carrying a gun. It may make them think twice. Creating "gun free zones" is like a candy store for criminals. They know that they will be the only ones with a gun.
I am, however, in favor of background checks and proper vetting of gun buyers.

 

[odyssey2]

I don't really get this one. You know there are bad people out there that want to do bad things, right? You think that someone who wants to kill you is going to listen when you try to reason with them?
I don't own a gun, but I am glad that there are good people out there who do. I feel safer knowing that some in my circle are concealed carrying. I also like it that the criminals don't have any idea who might be carrying a gun. It may make them think twice. Creating "gun free zones" is like a candy store for criminals. They know that they will be the only ones with a gun.
I am, however, in favor of background checks and proper vetting of gun buyers.

I was saying it was a larger reflection of violence in this country that so many police and innocent people are threatened with violence, presumably by other people with guns, that they are required to use guns as self-defense. Of course they should be able to defend themselves, which is why I think radical gun control wouldn't work, especially in a country like ours with more guns than people already manufactured.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I was saying it was a larger reflection of violence in this country that so many police and innocent people are threatened with violence, presumably by other people with guns, that they are required to use guns as self-defense. Of course they should be able to defend themselves, which is why I think radical gun control wouldn't work, especially in a country like ours with more guns than people already manufactured.

I am convinced that, if guns had never been invented, humans would find alternative ways to kill other humans (the 9/11 terrorist attacks did not involve any guns). Advanced weaponry has just made killing more efficient and easier. But it has also made self defense more efficient as well.

 

[deleted50478]

Both coexist. Science can't refute religion, and religion can't refute science.

Existence of God is either real or it's not. Has there been a scientific experiment that had clarified this that I'm not aware of?

You set a low bar. With that standard you’d believe anything. Your argument would apply to every religion, unicorns, leprechauns, etc.

You are demonstrating the burden of proof fallacy.

 

[GravelRider]

Wrong. Republicans would rather you not dismember and suck out the brains of unborn children.

You know, using graphic descriptors like that for abortion is just as disingenuous as describing an automatic rifle’s bullet tearing through a second grader’s skull and splattering her brains all over the desk and then having a second bullet ripping through her heart and splashing blood all over the body of another dead second grader nearby when talking about gun control.

 

[PainDrain]

Wrong. Republicans would rather you not dismember and suck out the brains of unborn children.

Or you could take a logical approach and educate people on actual preventative measures ( condoms/otc). Republicans don’t want that either.

 

[Mikkel]

You know, using graphic descriptors like that for abortion is just as disingenuous as describing an automatic rifle’s bullet tearing through a second grader’s skull and splattering her brains all over the desk and then having a second bullet ripping through her heart and splashing blood all over the body of another dead second grader nearby when talking about gun control.

I would never celebrate the taking of innocent life.

Abortion proponents, on the other hand, celebrate when women "exercise their right to choose".

 

[Steve_Zissou]

I would never celebrate the taking of innocent life.

Abortion proponents, on the other hand, celebrate when women "exercise their right to choose".

You missed his point. Either way, you’re both talking past each other. Diametrically opposed axioms make this argument impossible to actually have.

 

[Twiggidy]

I want to know where people are living where they need an assault rifle to protect themselves.......so I know to not live in that area. It's just the strangest rationalization. "I'm safe because I have an assault rifle therefore my neighborhood is safe because I needed an assault rifle to make my neighborhood safe." What? I'd rather people be honest and say "I just wanted to own and shoot a machine gun".

 

[Twiggidy]

You missed his point. Either way, you’re both talking past each other. Diametrically opposed axioms make this argument impossible to actually have.

And what's sad is that it's always an argument. It can never be an civil discussion.

 

[Twiggidy]

A. I agree.
B. No one owns an assault rifle.

I admit, I'm not well versed in what's what. I'm not even an anti-gun person as I think shooting as a skill is a fascinating skill as a sport. I would love to be able to hit a target that's 500 yds away in gusty winds. That's cool to me. I just can't buy into people telling me an AR weapon is for "protection" or "hunting". My man, if you need an AR to hit a deer, then you're not a good shot.

But maybe I'm sleep and I need to worry about the gov't take over and need to "militia up" ....but I have a feeling I wouldn't be welcome in a militia. ::hmm emoji::

 

[Mikkel]

You missed his point. Either way, you’re both talking past each other. Diametrically opposed axioms make this argument impossible to actually have.

Really sucks for those of us that love both guns and vaginas.
Like Reactions: nimbus, DrZzZz, PainDrain and 2 others

 

[Steve_Zissou]

Random quotes

I don’t see you making any point here.

 

[GravelRider]

I admit, I'm not well versed in what's what. I'm not even an anti-gun person as I think shooting as a skill is a fascinating skill as a sport. I would love to be able to hit a target that's 500 yds away in gusty winds. That's cool to me. I just can't buy into people telling me an AR weapon is for "protection" or "hunting". My man, if you need an AR to hit a deer, then you're not a good shot.

But maybe I'm sleep and I need to worry about the gov't take over and need to "militia up" ....but I have a feeling I wouldn't be welcome in a militia. ::hmm emoji::

A good way to judge how a person really feels about the second amendment is to ask how they feel about a black man owning a gun. I get the impression that a lot of NRA members think that gun rights only apply to white people. It was the Black Panthers who brought the issue to the forefront, after all.

 

[deleted50478]

I want to know where people are living where they need an assault rifle to protect themselves.......so I know to not live in that area. It's just the strangest rationalization. "I'm safe because I have an assault rifle therefore my neighborhood is safe because I needed an assault rifle to make my neighborhood safe." What? I'd rather people be honest and say "I just wanted to own and shoot a machine gun".

None of the guns you can buy are assault rifles, so banning them won’t work, they’re already banned.

Roughly 10 years ago I heard gunshots and looked out my window and a guy holding the biggest pistol ever saw me looking out at him. I owned a bunch of guns but none were at this rental house at the time. I’m like, “well ****, I hope he doesn’t decide to murder my family because if he does, there’s nothing I can do about it.”

I called the police and they took 35 minutes to get there.

It turned out that the guy with the gun was my neighbor who had shot at 2 guys who were breaking into his house, so we weren’t actually in danger, but we were still undefended by ourselves or the police.

It wasn’t a bad neighborhood or anything.

Since then I’ve continuously kept my guns at my house. I’m not even pro-gun in particular, but I think short-of banning all handguns and most rifles, nothing is going to work.

 

[Mikkel]

I want to know where people are living where they need an assault rifle to protect themselves.......so I know to not live in that area. It's just the strangest rationalization. "I'm safe because I have an assault rifle therefore my neighborhood is safe because I needed an assault rifle to make my neighborhood safe." What? I'd rather people be honest and say "I just wanted to own and shoot a machine gun".

Remember, the definition of "assault weapon" from Democrats is any gun capable of holding more than 10 rounds in a detachable magazine.

Would you trust your life and your family's lives to a gun with only 10 rounds available? That's barely enough to take down just one person attacking you. Imagine having 2-3 assailants...

 

[Twiggidy]

Remember, the definition of "assault weapon" from Democrats is any gun capable of holding more than 10 rounds in a detachable magazine.

Would you trust your life and your family's lives to a gun with only 10 rounds available? That's barely enough to take down just one person attacking you. Imagine having 2-3 assailants...

I’ll say it again. If I love someone where I have to worry about my family because of assailants, then I live in the wrong place

 

[SeniorWrangler]

Politically, it doesn’t matter what NRA guys like Mikkel think about Beto, he was never going to vote for a Democrat in 2020. The battle is over suburban moms who worry about their kids getting getting killed in an incident.

 

[Mikkel]

A good way to judge how a person really feels about the second amendment is to ask how they feel about a black man owning a gun. I get the impression that a lot of NRA members think that gun rights only apply to white people. It was the Black Panthers who brought the issue to the forefront, after all.

I think second amendment supporters love groups like NAAGA.

I think NRA members by and large celebrate the 2nd amendment as well as law abiding citizens who celebrate it as well regardless of skin color. I think it's racist for you to accuse white NRA members of hating black gun owners just because of the color of skin.

 

[Mikkel]

I’ll say it again. If I love someone where I have to worry about my family because of assailants, then I live in the wrong place

Bad stuff happens everywhere in the world, just different levels of risk in different locations.

I'm not in a high crime area, but that doesn't mean it's a no-crime area.

 

[PainDrain]

Remember, the definition of "assault weapon" from Democrats is any gun capable of holding more than 10 rounds in a detachable magazine.

Would you trust your life and your family's lives to a gun with only 10 rounds available? That's barely enough to take down just one person attacking you. Imagine having 2-3 assailants...

So in all honesty you don’t need and shouldn’t have a gun for protection that has a capacity of ten or more rounds. What you “need” is a gun that can, in a single round, hit an area the size of a basketball. The most effective household defense weapon is a shotgun and most hold 5-6 rounds. The likelihood you, in a panic and fearing for your life, are going to accurately hit and incapacitate your target with a pistol is low.

 

[Mikkel]

Politically, it doesn’t matter what NRA guys like Mikkel think about Beto, he was never going to vote for a Democrat in 2020. The battle is over suburban moms who worry about their kids getting getting killed in an incident.

And you think suburban moms are so stupid that promising to allow criminals to keep their guns but disarming everyone else will satisfy them?

You don't think parents would feel safer if there were more armed guards at school to defend against madman criminals?

 

[Twiggidy]

A good way to judge how a person really feels about the second amendment is to ask how they feel about a black man owning a gun. I get the impression that a lot of NRA members think that gun rights only apply to white people. It was the Black Panthers who brought the issue to the forefront, after all.

It’s also a reason I don’t own a gun. I’m not trying to be a hashtag