What is the end goal for the left on the 2nd?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

Do these wealthy celbrities migrate to any of the red states? LOL? List some examples.

Also, I never said that the US is a prison, so denying that is fairly futile. Others said that New Zealand is a prison, and I am denying that.

The US, however, has the largest prison population of any country in the world, bigger than imprisoned population of China, which is the next from the top.

you don't pay attention to anything other than your voice do you?

totally biased news article showing you how incredibly silly you look right now.

Or, the wealthier middle class are choosing to move out of the cities into the 'burbs and the wider open spaces.

My move to New Zealand had to do with me moving my family to a rural property, with a better environment and lower crime rates. It was not politically motivated.

Also, do you think that police forces are better able to defeat crime just because the mayor or councillors are in a particular party? No, crime rate usually is higher where population density is higher. However, the Democrats are usually stronger against gun ownership than Republicans are. The crime figures seem to reflect that:

Republicans claim Democrats can’t keep us safe – crime data disagrees.

lol, totally refuted your idiotic statement, and you double down. Well played.

I totally refuted your refutation with a real world example and statistical support.

Did you not expect me to respond to such a flimsy bit of reinterpreting the world through the US partisan political filter?

can you explain the partisan part? Other than the fact that people from Blue states are moving to red states in large numbers is what the article I linked was about. Now if that's not really happening, could you explain how that article got it wrong please.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: chr0naut

We must not be reading the same article. I can't find anything in that article that says the people fleeing blue states/counties are doing so specifically because of the political affiliation of the person in charge of managing those areas. I can, however, find an article full of information relating to the mass exodus of people from blue states/counties because of the consequences of the political affiliation of the people in charge of managing those areas.
Democrat govs do democrat gov things. The people aren't leaving because the gov is democrat. They're leaving because of the things the gov is doing, which are democrat things.

So even then. Yes. They're leaving blue states/counties for red states/counties BECAUSE they're red. They aren't doing the insane sh*t that blue states/counties are doing.

I said that the article was ONLY doing that, relating things to the party affiliation of the state and ignoring other reasons for migration entirely.

Your repetition of the thrust of the article will not make it any truer or less biased.

a reply to: chr0naut

Are you a gun owner?

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: chr0naut

Explain to me what you think the process is for purchasing a firearm in the US.
We'll even get specific about the scenario. Let's say I wanted to walk into my local walmart and buy a handgun. Can I? And if so, what is the process? How long do I have to wait, if at all? What documentation do I have to provide? What checks are done before I can leave the store with the firearm?

The process of buying a gun from Walmart is that you fill out an ATF form and present some identification. Basically:

*Name, address, place of birth, race and citizenship.
*A social security number (optional).
*Have they ever been convicted of a felony?
*Have they ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
*Are they an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any other depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
*Are they a fugitive from justice?
*Have they ever been committed to a mental institution?

The store then calls the FBI, which runs a background check on the person through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The background check can just take minutes. It's usually far quicker than the getting a car license from the DMV.

(A case in point where this system doesn't work is mass shooter Dylan Roof who killed 9 people in Charlestown, South Carolina, despite him having trespassing and drug convictions from before he legally purchased the murder weapon).

The store is then supposed to retain the form, take the cash, and give you the gun (and usually ammo). Sometimes stores 'misplace' all that paperwork which will never be required and will therefor just sit there in the store for years.

The problem is that someone else with a clean slate can buy the gun/ammo for someone who is non-compliant. Or a buyer could just go to a gun show or private seller, and there's often no paper trail or background checks.

Sometimes there are special restrictions, depending upon the city or state, but those restrictions are usually trivial to bypass:

Majority of Guns Used in Chicago Crimes Come From Outside Illinois: Report

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

Do these wealthy celbrities migrate to any of the red states? LOL? List some examples.

Also, I never said that the US is a prison, so denying that is fairly futile. Others said that New Zealand is a prison, and I am denying that.

The US, however, has the largest prison population of any country in the world, bigger than imprisoned population of China, which is the next from the top.

you don't pay attention to anything other than your voice do you?

totally biased news article showing you how incredibly silly you look right now.

Or, the wealthier middle class are choosing to move out of the cities into the 'burbs and the wider open spaces.

My move to New Zealand had to do with me moving my family to a rural property, with a better environment and lower crime rates. It was not politically motivated.

Also, do you think that police forces are better able to defeat crime just because the mayor or councillors are in a particular party? No, crime rate usually is higher where population density is higher. However, the Democrats are usually stronger against gun ownership than Republicans are. The crime figures seem to reflect that:

Republicans claim Democrats can’t keep us safe – crime data disagrees.

lol, totally refuted your idiotic statement, and you double down. Well played.

I totally refuted your refutation with a real world example and statistical support.

Did you not expect me to respond to such a flimsy bit of reinterpreting the world through the US partisan political filter?

can you explain the partisan part?

OMG, just look at your posting history. You are always posting stuff about how the Dems are so bad and the Repubs are so good. LOL.



But the truth is that Watergate, McCarthyism, and Iran-Contra, and such like, are more often Repub issues. It only stands to reason in that the party was birthed in insurgency and has been carrying on in the same manner for 100+years.

List of federal political scandals in the United States

Other than the fact that people from Blue states are moving to red states in large numbers is what the article I linked was about. Now if that's not really happening, could you explain how that article got it wrong please.

People from the high density living of the cities move to places with more room and therefore less crowding, a better fit for a young family than an apartment.

And more of the large US cities tend to be staunchly Democrat.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Are you a gun owner?

No. I do not own a gun, and I never have. I have drilled with guns and done target shooting with rifles while in the Australian Air Force Cadets.

If I ever required a gun for animal control, I have a couple of neighbours who have obliged. They are good friends and I'm happy to pay them for the service.

Besides, it is a major pain, financially too, getting a gun license in New Zealand.

NZ Firearms licence

a reply to: chr0naut

Do you think I should own a gun?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Do you think I should own a gun?

I'm not sure what reason/s you would have for requiring a gun.

In New Zealand, wanting a gun for self-defense is not considered a valid reason for being granted a license.

And history has shown that armed revolutions are more likely to lead to tyranny, rather than defending against it.

But there are valid resons to own a gun and rational gun control laws should accommodate that.

a reply to: chr0naut

Makes sense.
After all, New Zealand is the land of sheep.

It’s a shame you’ve lost that inalienable right.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

Makes sense.
After all, New Zealand is the land of sheep.

It’s a shame you’ve lost that inalienable right.

We can still get gun licenses in New Zealand, and we still can defend ourselves both with and without guns. But as a sole reason to purchase a gun, self-defense is a fairly weak reason, because:

1. There will always be more incidents where gun violence is intended than there are instances where a good guy prevents gun violence by being armed (even in open carry situations).

2. A criminal with intent to shoot at the slightest provocation will most likely have their gun up, loaded, with safety off and ready to fire before someone can draw, aim and fire in response.

3. Bullets don't always stop at or near the target, so any use of firearms in a crowded place (and even in widely dispersed crowds) is likely to cause collateral damage.

4. In active shooter incidents, good guys who are trying to stop the bad guy can easily be mistaken for one of the bad guys.

5. There are a lot of accidents and suicides with firearms occur in places where they are easily available.

And, just a little thing, but the "right" to own a gun has historically been taken away across multiple countries across the world. It isn't and has never been inalienable - not even in the 'pro-gun' USA.

originally posted by: chr0naut

I'll ignore your first part as stupid talk and assume you just weren't thinking when you posted it, you will figure out why if you look.

But why are people moving to red states out of blue cities in such high numbers all of the sudden? What dynamic has changed? What events have taken place that would make young families decide they needed more space in the last couple years, as opposed to before that time?

If your shovel wears out, just holler, we can arrange for a new one to be sent over.

a reply to: chr0naut

it's kind of funny to watch this. Guns are bad, Americans are bad for having them. Americans are bad for being able to get them. But in NZ, you can still get them, and when one is needed, you pay your neighbor to do your shooting for you, like paying a mercenary. And you probably don't see it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Do you think I should own a gun?

I'm not sure what reason/s you would have for requiring a gun.

In New Zealand, wanting a gun for self-defense is not considered a valid reason for being granted a license.

And history has shown that armed revolutions are more likely to lead to tyranny, rather than defending against it.

But there are valid resons to own a gun and rational gun control laws should accommodate that.

That's the entire point.

Why would I or anyone else have to justify the "why" to you or any authority?

a reply to: chr0naut

And history has shown that armed revolutions are more likely to lead to tyranny, rather than defending against it.

Yet 235 years or so it didn't in the US, though the progressive movement has certainly been trying and over the last 20 odd years authoritarianism has absolutely been on the rise.

Criminals often don't know how to use a firearm with any proficiency, because people with warrants can't really go to the range and practice.

research the good guys with a gun stopping mass shootings, you have to look at local news because msm won't touch a story showing how beneficial towards the 2nd.

the 2nd is so important to many of us because we wouldnt have a nation worth fighting for if our ancestors didnt own firearms. We weren't given a nation, england didnt just up and leave one day because it wasnt worth keeping, we had to fight tooth and nail to create this nation.

That is why its a god given right, without those firearms in the hands of private citizens we lose badly and would be answering to the king today.

Even cons (depending on the crime) can get their right to own a firearm back if they can show they are rehabilitated.

Only in hardcore blue states have honest citizens guilty of no crime lost their ability to own and use a firearm because of useless feel good laws.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

It is framed to keep the government (and their stooges) hands off of them.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people who want to legislate against guns do not do so to have them in their own posession. They have no intention to take them into their own hands.

Besides, do you think that a band of armed citizens could stand against modern highly armed and armoured defense forces?

Since it is entirely illegal for the US to use its military against its own people (Posse Comitatus Act), what highly armed and armored defense forces are you referring to?

And you want to use that argument to support the idea that guns in the hands of citizens prevent tyrrany?

However, there have been several times militarized US forces and agencies have engaged in hostile actions against US citizens, causing numerous fatalities. The Waco siege, Ken Ballew raid, Miracle Valley shootout, the Montana Freemen, the 1985 MOVE bombing, Rainbow Farm, Ruby Ridge, the Shannon Street massacre, and even in Washington with the Bonus Army. Clearly the Posse Comitatus Act, which has been amended and even suspended at times, has provided no protection for armed US citizens.

And there is enough historical evidence of where an armed uprising has established a tyrrany (not countered it), to indicate that the 2nd Ammendment cannot achieve the very thing it was allegedly framed to do.

Deflection and BS. The ATF is not US military. Neither is the FBI. Name a few incidents where the Army, Marines, Navy or Air Force were used on civilians in this country....I will wait.... (for a long freakin time....because,...)

Posse Comitatus originally applied only to the Army but an amendment in 1956 expanded it to include the Air Force. In 2021 it was further expanded to include Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

And history has shown that armed revolutions are more likely to lead to tyranny, rather than defending against it.

Yet 235 years or so it didn't in the US, though the progressive movement has certainly been trying and over the last 20 odd years authoritarianism has absolutely been on the rise.

What, and your Civil War wasn't a batch of armed citizens banding together to oppose the federal government by force of arms?

Oops, so not quite 235 years of idyllic and peaceful liberty under the Constitution, then?

Criminals often don't know how to use a firearm with any proficiency, because people with warrants can't really go to the range and practice.

research the good guys with a gun stopping mass shootings, you have to look at local news because msm won't touch a story showing how beneficial towards the 2nd.

The majority of gun deaths don't even involve criminals. Suicides and accidents are far more numerous than gun crimes. But even if you only count the number of times where guns are used in crime, the number of times that an armed good guy foils one of those gun crimes is not 100%, so it will always be less than the number of gun crimes. Always.

How many instances per year have you seen in the news of a good-guy who foils gun crime by carrying? Sure, there are some. But unless you can show actual numbers, it is just an entirely speculative scenario.

Perhaps if we looked at the balance of justifiable gun homicides (i.e self-defensive use) compared to gun crime related homicides, we could see how things balance out in real world numbers?

In 2019, for instance, there were 316 gun homicides judged as justifiable. That same year, there were 10,258 gun homicides judged as crimes. So, the good-guy gun defender scenario is fairly rare.

Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use

Murder Victims by Weapon, 2015–2019

the 2nd is so important to many of us because we wouldnt have a nation worth fighting for if our ancestors didnt own firearms. We weren't given a nation, england didnt just up and leave one day because it wasnt worth keeping, we had to fight tooth and nail to create this nation.

America is probably the most war mongering nation in the world. The revolution wasn't enough. - even when it won independence, they have been fighting everyone even themselves.

That is why its a god given right, without those firearms in the hands of private citizens we lose badly and would be answering to the king today.

The British Empire, a colonial power, evolved into the British Commonwealth of Nations, where multiple nations attained independence and soverignity without revolutionary warfare.

List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom

So, perhaps you wouldn't be under the thumb of the King at all.

Also, since the British East India Company was providing the lions share of internationally supplied goods to the Americas, shouldn't taxation of those goods supplied actually be something reasonable? They did have shipping and administrative costs.

Even cons (depending on the crime) can get their right to own a firearm back if they can show they are rehabilitated.

Only in hardcore blue states have honest citizens guilty of no crime lost their ability to own and use a firearm because of useless feel good laws.

Yes, but countries with strong gun control just don't have the scale of the gun problems of the USA. Even countries that have a larger percentage of gun owners among their citizens.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Do you think I should own a gun?

I'm not sure what reason/s you would have for requiring a gun.

In New Zealand, wanting a gun for self-defense is not considered a valid reason for being granted a license.

And history has shown that armed revolutions are more likely to lead to tyranny, rather than defending against it.

But there are valid resons to own a gun and rational gun control laws should accommodate that.

That's the entire point.

Why would I or anyone else have to justify the "why" to you or any authority?

Why license drivers?

Why register automobiles?

It's because people don't always follow safety rules, or they intentionally misuse them to commit crimes, and these things can be fairly dangerous.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Do you think I should own a gun?

I'm not sure what reason/s you would have for requiring a gun.

In New Zealand, wanting a gun for self-defense is not considered a valid reason for being granted a license.

And history has shown that armed revolutions are more likely to lead to tyranny, rather than defending against it.

But there are valid resons to own a gun and rational gun control laws should accommodate that.

That's the entire point.

Why would I or anyone else have to justify the "why" to you or any authority?

Why license drivers?

Why register automobiles?

It's because people don't always follow safety rules, or they intentionally misuse them to commit crimes, and these things can be fairly dangerous.

So you think "rights" should actually be privileges, offered by the government.

a reply to: chr0naut

Do you think you've changed any minds?


That is to say that someone who lives in the US that was thinking about owning a firearm has been dissuaded by your postings?

Because I can sure tell you that here in reality, gun purchases and ownership are historic.

That is to say that the more lil authoritarians like yourself try to put yourself in between freedom and oppression, the more folks side with freedom.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

It is framed to keep the government (and their stooges) hands off of them.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people who want to legislate against guns do not do so to have them in their own posession. They have no intention to take them into their own hands.

Besides, do you think that a band of armed citizens could stand against modern highly armed and armoured defense forces?

Since it is entirely illegal for the US to use its military against its own people (Posse Comitatus Act), what highly armed and armored defense forces are you referring to?

And you want to use that argument to support the idea that guns in the hands of citizens prevent tyrrany?

However, there have been several times militarized US forces and agencies have engaged in hostile actions against US citizens, causing numerous fatalities. The Waco siege, Ken Ballew raid, Miracle Valley shootout, the Montana Freemen, the 1985 MOVE bombing, Rainbow Farm, Ruby Ridge, the Shannon Street massacre, and even in Washington with the Bonus Army. Clearly the Posse Comitatus Act, which has been amended and even suspended at times, has provided no protection for armed US citizens.

And there is enough historical evidence of where an armed uprising has established a tyrrany (not countered it), to indicate that the 2nd Ammendment cannot achieve the very thing it was allegedly framed to do.

Deflection and BS. The ATF is not US military. Neither is the FBI. Name a few incidents where the Army, Marines, Navy or Air Force were used on civilians in this country....I will wait.... (for a long freakin time....because,...)

The Bonus Army, where the US armed forces were deployed against a protest by veterans, their families and supporters. They fixed bayonets and went in with tanks and tear gas against veterans, women an children. Generals Douglas Macarthur and George S. Patton were in the chain of command that issued the orders. The generals also ignored direct orders from above, several times.

Also, there's these: 12 times the president called in the military domestically

Also, Trump threatened to bring in the millitary, a couple of times, to deal with rioting.

Posse Comitatus originally applied only to the Army but an amendment in 1956 expanded it to include the Air Force. In 2021 it was further expanded to include Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force.

Besides, Posse Comitatus doesn't protect anyone if the government implements iInsurrection Act provisions. All they need to do is decaler any uprising insurrectionists, and they can then blow them all away. So much for any attempt by citizens to defend against tyrranical government.