MJD wants a divorce - So do I (Page 5): ================ If she is really serious about this, she will be in for it. If she is launching a trial balloon to see who shoots at it, she...

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

RascalRiley wrote:

Some will oppose it vehemently. Others will see it as way to battle the Wokes.

It has traction because MTG does nothing without the approval of her exceptional donor base. She is very good at fundraising.

They don’t care. If this will be financially beneficial to them they will continue back her.

================
If she is really serious about this, she will be in for it. If she is launching a trial balloon to see who shoots at it, she will find out fairly fast. If she is merely relieving her frustrations at the left's many crazy antics, that will come to light rather quickly. To me, it is either treasonous or simply stupid. This has to be a time for unifiers, not dividers!
E pluribus unum!

That is not to say we don't need to bring sanity back to the majority of the Left. They divide us by shattering the constitution and the psyches of most ordinary citizens.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

manning5 wrote:

================
If she is really serious about this, she will be in for it. If she is launching a trial balloon to see who shoots at it, she will find out fairly fast. If she is merely relieving her frustrations at the left's many crazy antics, that will come to light rather quickly. To me, it is either treasonous or simply stupid. This has to be a time for unifiers, not dividers!
E pluribus unum!

I could not agree more with the need for unification but I disagree on the severity of the threat.

The trial balloon has been floated and the only shots within the Republican Party have been from RINOs.

Hannity, a huge influencer appears to be onboard.

I googled ‘ hannity red and blue states ‘

straightUp Loc: California

PeterS wrote:

So how would this work...would Red states have their own capital and the same for Blue states? That wouldn't work because Cons lack the ability to accept responsibility and without Democrats to blame all their problems on what would they do? This wouldn't solve any problems, if anything it would just make matters worse with war the only solution the teeny-tiny conservative mind can come up with...just as it is trying to do now.

Yeah, I dunno how the hell it'll work. Like I said, MTG isn't the smartest cookie in Congress and I really don't think she's really thought it out. Or she did but only as much an underdeveloped brain can,; sort of like Trump - just a constant emission of half-baked ideas. And like Trump, that might just be her thing. I know I'm not the only one who thinks she's only there for the attention.

I see your point about the conservatives always having the Democrats to blame for their own failures and I admit that's something I was thinking about when I was writing the OP. I think to some degree, conservatives CAN blame liberals for SOME things, but over all I think the pattern is heavily one-sided. It doesn't become so obvious until you eliminate all the silly nonsense issues like all the weird hangups that drive the so-called "culture" war.

Even so, I think the red states would make whatever adjustments they need once the reality hits them and to be honest (and I've been wanting to say for a long time) I don't think conservatives are the true culprits in all of this. In fact, I think they're as much the victims as we are.

I think the true culprits are the plutocratic oligarchs that play the government AND the people like a video game and I think that for whatever reason, some people fall for the scams a LOT easier than others do, which necessitates two strategies... the Democratic strategy of bargaining with the people who AREN'T falling for the scams and the Republican strategy of taking advantage of as many suckers as possible.

This way if the oligarchs want to scuttle the ship, the Democrats can use the life boats to bargain with their constituency while the Republicans can convince their constituency that having a drag queen show on board is a far bigger issue.

For example, it makes sense to support collective bargaining because as proven by our own history, the only way the people have ever defended their human rights against industrial tyranny is though collective bargaining. Obviously, it's a good thing for the people to have and a certain disadvantage for any enterprise trying to exploit them. But the only people trying to protect collective bargaining are on the left. The entire culture of the right has been brainwashed into thinking any form of collectivism is Marxist and that they should fight it or they will wind up in gulags.

This is also why the partisan divide isn't as simple as MTG thinks. It's not the state itself that determines how gullible people are. It has a lot more to do with diversity because diversity forces people to confront different views. Therefore it's not as easy to preserve naivety in urban regions with a lot of diversity in close quarters as it is in the more isolated and homogeneous stretches of the countryside.

In other words, the same elevated levels of diversity and education in urban regions like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta that make them blue will also be a huge problem for their respective states if they decide they want to split.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

PeterS wrote:

So how would this work...would Red states have their own capital and the same for Blue states? That wouldn't work because Cons lack the ability to accept responsibility and without Democrats to blame all their problems on what would they do? This wouldn't solve any problems, if anything it would just make matters worse with war the only solution the teeny-tiny conservative mind can come up with...just as it is trying to do now.

Cons lack the ability to accept responsibility and without Democrats to blame all their problems on what would they do?

This idea of a divorce might not be well thought out. Is that a given given the instigator.

straightUp Loc: California

Rose42 wrote:

No, its because you think the shotgun is all you need - it had nothing to do with not wanting an AR. Its funny you keep mentioning your NRA buddies as if thats supposed to mean anything.

I never mention them to prove anything... only as side comments, like how I can't wait to tell them that you think when a person chooses a Mossberg 500 over an AR-15 for home defense it's an indication of how little he knows about home defense.

Then you tried to backpedal by saying that in today's world a shotgun isn't enough. Well, I have other things to spend my money on so one weapon will have to do... and I chose a 12-gauge shotgun... Is that OK with you?

Anyway, when I giggled about you're "in today's world lecture" where you didn't actually explain the dangers in any detail or for that matter what a better option would be - I guess because your only point was to disqualify me somehow, you made another undue assumption about me by implying that I never encountered violence.

You don't know that.

Fact is I've been shot at (not hit) in front of my house, when I was 34 and I was stabbed when I was 19. Not exactly the Battle of the Bulge but maybe you shouldn't try to rest your arguments on baseless assumptions about people.

You also said "I didn’t ‘suggest’ you weren’t an expert - I said it".... Are you trying to tell me that you know me so well that there is no doubt in your mind?

Finally, you said that you are not against gun control but you are against banning.

Are you referring the the banning of specific types of guns? If so, that *IS* a form of gun control. Or are you confusing that with banning ALL guns? If so, I am agreement as that would be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. But then again very few people are actually making that suggestion.

The fear over a total ban on all guns is a slippery-slope fallacy. Banning AR-15's today does NOT mean all guns will be banned tomorrow.

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

straightUp wrote:

I never mention them to prove anything... only as ... (show quote)

====================
Banning AR-15's is an action mostly motivated by fear of it's sinister look, not its merely semi-automatic rifle reality. It is not an assault weapon by military definition. I suppose leftists can define any weapon they hate to be an assault weapon, even a single shot rifle, or a muzzle-loader. Tiresome!

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

RascalRiley wrote:

I could not agree more with the need for unification but I disagree on the severity of the threat.

The trial balloon has been floated and the only shots within the Republican Party have been from RINOs.

Hannity, a huge influencer appears to be onboard.

I googled ‘ hannity red and blue states ‘

=================
Hannity seems to have lost a step or two. Yes, we conservatives are flat down on leftists, but then so are they on us. This dichotomy does generate a lot of conspiracies and wild proposals on both sides, and it is not surprising that the hate is dividing the nation.
In view of the actual differences between the two sides, centered on the total unacceptability of the ideology of the left, it is not surprising that we are at loggerheads.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

manning5 wrote:

====================
Banning AR-15's is an action mostly motivated by fear of it's sinister look, not its merely semi-automatic rifle reality. It is not an assault weapon by military definition. I suppose leftists can define any weapon they hate to be an assault weapon, even a single shot rifle, or a muzzle-loader. Tiresome!

An assault style gun can do more damage in a shorter period of time with reasonable availability.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

manning5 wrote:

=================
Hannity seems to have lost a step or two. Yes, we conservatives are flat down on leftists, but then so are they on us. This dichotomy does generate a lot of conspiracies and wild proposals on both sides, and it is not surprising that the hate is dividing the nation.
In view of the actual differences between the two sides, centered on the total unacceptability of the ideology of the left, it is not surprising that we are at loggerheads.

but then so are they on us. Most of us are on the same page. The drag shows and satanic are fringe, not main stream liberals. We are normal people.

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

RascalRiley wrote:

An assault style gun can do more damage in a shorter period of time with reasonable availability.

================
What is an "assault style" weapon?
The absolute determiner for an assault weapon is its automatic fire capability, something an AR-15 does not have.

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

RascalRiley wrote:

but then so are they on us. Most of us are on the same page. The drag shows and satanic are fringe, not main stream liberals. We are normal people.

So, you consider Biden to be "normal people?" Obama? Pelosi? Schumer? Their followers?

straightUp Loc: California

manning5 wrote:

=====================

Afraid? Oh, there are lots of things I could be afraid of if I let myself. War, nuclear war, Biological war, chemical war, pandemics, fatal illnesses, rioters on my property, robbers, the sky falling, wolves at the door, a mentally ill person with an AR-15 or any gun and so on.

But I am not afraid. At this point I am a realist, a fatalist, and still a Christian conservative.

OK. But, I can't help but notice how you say your a fatalist who is "still" a Christian conservative. Are you trying to say your fate is to eventually not be a Christian conservative or was that just a poor choice of words?

manning5 wrote:

The idea of what amounts to disbanding the United States appalls me

Why?

manning5 wrote:

, as does the idea of taking away states rights or more seriously reducing them.

That I understand, although you DO realize state secession and reducing state power are opposite things, right?

manning5 wrote:

It is ...one nation, indivisible... for me.

Why?

manning5 wrote:

Thus, there is no option to divide us into separate Red and Blue nations.

Not if your hellbent on preserving the union. But I still don't understand why that's your position.

manning5 wrote:

Evidently, the concept of union rests far too lightly on some shoulders. One should assign the word traitor to them for that is exactly what they are.

Yeah, yeah, I got you.. But you still haven't given me a reason why you think it's such a horrible idea.

manning5 wrote:

Indeed, the federal government should loosen the controls on the states they have amassed over many years in favor of states rights and subsidiarity, and cease the use of their money leverage on states to gain their objectives.

As long as we remain united, I would agree with you.

manning5 wrote:

Further, it is in everyone's best interests if the feds support the economic resurgence of poorer states by encouraging investments in industrial development, creation of government and military bases in the territories, and infrastructure developments that aid the areas.

And you don't think any of that can happen without big centralized government?

manning5 wrote:

A word or two on the matter of gun ownership:

OK...

manning5 wrote:

1. Everyone should have the right to own and be trained to own and use guns at a fairly early age.

We already do and I have no problem it.

manning5 wrote:

They should become reasonably proficient in their use.

I'll agree with their right to own and operate guns... 'Not so sure about the "should" part... sounds like you're suggesting a mandate. Are you?

manning5 wrote:

2. I see no reason for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, or weapons of very high caliber, say beyond 50 cal or 10 ga. perhaps with a few regulated exceptions.

Agreed.

manning5 wrote:

3. The right to carry a weapon either openly or hidden should be fully lawful.

I'm undecided on that one.

manning5 wrote:

4. There should be no restriction on magazine capacity.

TOTAL disagreement here! I think it's more important to limit capacity than caliber. It's the capacity that enables mass shooting.

manning5 wrote:

5. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle of low caliber and should not be restricted from civilian ownership.

Don't give me your gun-geek BS... The AR-15 was designed for the Army to be used against humans and the modifications for the civilian market don't do much to change that. It's an assault weapon and no one needs to be a subscriber to Guns and Ammo to see that VERY obvious fact.

manning5 wrote:

6. For self-defense and defense of the home virtually any common weapon is useful: pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc. To cover most defensive situations, I own one or more of each type, and they are always near at hand and ready to shoot. I am a marksman, too with the weapons I own. Each type has its best uses.

Yes, for that matter a baseball bat is also useful... Like I told Rose, I have other things to spend my money on so I wanted ONE gun for the job and chose a shotgun. I do also own a handgun but that was more because I just wanted one. The shotgun was because I was doing a lot of traveling in the heyday of my career and I wanted something that my wife could use when I was away. She never had to use it to defend herself or the kids and neither have I, nor am I surprised. Home invasions are not anywhere near as common as you folks always make it out to be. You are either using that as an excuse for your hobby or you're just a really paranoid, frightened person.

manning5 wrote:

7. While not fully reported by police departments, the data available shows that over 2.5 million incidents a year occur where use of a defensive gun was instrumental in thwarting a criminal action at homes or on the street. One can speculate how many of these incidents might have been fatal, rapes, or serious assaults had the potential victim not possessed a weapon.

A lot of those incidents are based on assumptions that the threat was imminent when it wasn't and many more of them were incidents that could have been avoided just by being a little smarter about avoiding situations. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, if that was the case I wouldn't have bought a shotgun for home defense but I'm not buying into this urgency that we should all arm ourselves to the teeth. Not yet anyway.

manning5 wrote:

8. Laws do not inhibit criminals from acquiring weapons, nor do restricting sales by dealers.

Yes, they do. They don't *prevent* criminals from acquiring weapons but they DO inhibit them.

manning5 wrote:

It does cause criminals to spend more, double or triple the retail cost, for a weapon on the black market, or to have to steal the money to get one, or to steal one.

That's what inhibiting means... It makes it harder for them to get the weapons and it reduces the number of people who do because not all potential shooters are hard criminals.

manning5 wrote:

The black market is very much alive in major cities, and their source of weaponry is usually illegal imports from willing foreign nations and dealers. Thus, restrictions on civilian purchases is in fact ineffective. So have efforts been to shut down the black markets! EOR

Not true. Restrictions on civilian purchases ARE in fact effective as proven over and over and over and over again every time there's a mass shooting and the media starts comparing our stats to those of countries with stricter controls.

You people always try to pull this strawman fallacy where you imply the purpose of gun control is to completely stop the gun violence and then talk about how impossible that is. No one thinks gun control is going to stop all gun violence. But yes, it DOES reduce it.

Rose42

straightUp wrote:

I never mention them to prove anything... only as side comments, like how I can't wait to tell them that you think when a person chooses a Mossberg 500 over an AR-15 for home defense it's an indication of how little he knows about home defense.

Then you tried to backpedal by saying that in today's world a shotgun isn't enough. Well, I have other things to spend my money on so one weapon will have to do... and I chose a 12-gauge shotgun... Is that OK with you?

I didn’t backpedal. You go all over the place trying to rationalize your opinions. Lol. Go ahead and tell them whatever you want.

Quote:

Anyway, when I giggled about you're "in today's world lecture" where you didn't actually explain the dangers in any detail or for that matter what a better option would be - I guess because your only point was to disqualify me somehow, you made another undue assumption about me by implying that I never encountered violence.

How childish. It wasn’t a lecture just a point. I don’t recall saying you never encountered violence but that most people never have.

There are many facets to protection that go beyond having a gun.

Quote:

Fact is I've been shot at (not hit) in front of my house, when I was 34 and I was stabbed when I was 19. Not exactly the Battle of the Bulge but maybe you shouldn't try to rest your arguments on baseless assumptions about people.

Both have happened to me. I know that doesn’t automatically make one a realist or knowledgeable.

Quote:

You also said "I didn’t ‘suggest’ you weren’t an expert - I said it".... Are you trying to tell me that you know me so well that there is no doubt in your mind?

Based on your posts there is no doubt in my mind you’re not - including the comment about you’d rather spend money on something else rather than being better prepared

And I’m no expert either just always learning

Quote:

Finally, you said that you are not against gun control but you are against banning.

Are you referring the the banning of specific types of guns? If so, that *IS* a form of gun control. Or are you confusing that with banning ALL guns? If so, I am agreement as that would be a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. But then again very few people are actually making that suggestion.

{sigh}. Everyone knows banning is a form of gun control and no I’m not confusing it with banning all guns. Thats a pretty insipid comment on your part. I am for better checks on who buys them.

Quote:

The fear over a total ban on all guns is a slippery-slope fallacy. Banning AR-15's today does NOT mean all guns will be banned tomorrow.

Lol. Never said or implied it did. However it doesn’t mean there aren’t nuts out there who won’t try. There are some nitwits on this forum who think all semi autos should be banned.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

manning5 wrote:

================
What is an "assault style" weapon?
The absolute determiner for an assault weapon is its automatic fire capability, something an AR-15 does not have.

I see your point. Weapons that look like machine guns, rapid fire, are not necessary “assault style” weapons.

straightUp Loc: California

RascalRiley wrote:

An assault style gun can do more damage in a shorter period of time with reasonable availability.

They know that. But when it really comes down to it, they don't have any rational arguments to support their positions, so they revert to playing idiot games with technical terms.