It’s official, Donald Trump wants to finish off the Republican Party for good in 2024

[fskimospy]

I didnt know where else to put this...It seems Trump says something more outlandish every day, but this takes the cake.

Donald Trump calls for the 'termination' of the United States Constitution over 2020 loss (msn.com)

The Republican Party doesn’t seem to have a big problem with this.

Genuine question - as a conservative the ‘conservative’ party leader is now openly calling for the destruction of the constitution. How are conservatives ok with this?

 

[dawp]

All of them.



Age of consent issues.



Im FOR training, but against firearm type. I think it should be OK to own a rocket launcher.



wut?

so you okay with fully automatic weapons being readily available to the general public.

 

[blackangst1]

so you okay with fully automatic weapons being readily available to the general public.

Yes.

 

[eelw]

Yes.

Why stop there. You get a drone. You get a drone. Everyone gets a drone!!!

 

[blackangst1]

The Republican Party doesn’t seem to have a big problem with this.

Genuine question - as a conservative the ‘conservative’ party leader is now openly calling for the destruction of the constitution. How are conservatives ok with this?

Im only a fiscal conservative. Socially Im a bit more liberal. And I dont have an answer to your question. Its beyond idiotic.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes.

Nuclear weapons?

 

[Captante]

Trump's call to suspend Constitution not a 2024 deal-breaker, leading House Republican says (ABC News)

Still, Rep. Dave Joyce said on "This Week" that Trump's idea was "fantasy."


Same kind of "fantasy" as Jan 6th ?!?

 

[blackangst1]

Nuclear weapons?

Exceptions make the rules. Rocket launchers, sure. Nukes, no.

 

[fskimospy]

Trump's call to suspend Constitution not a 2024 deal-breaker, leading House Republican says (ABC News)

Still, Rep. Dave Joyce said on "This Week" that Trump's idea was "fantasy."


Same kind of "fantasy" as Jan 6th ?!?

As I predicted their response is ‘he didn’t really mean it’ despite the fact that we all know he 100% meant it.

 

[fskimospy]

Exceptions make the rules. Rocket launchers, sure. Nukes, no.

What is the coherent governing principle that makes rocket launchers ok but nuclear weapons not?

If the idea is that nuclear weapons are too dangerous for private citizens to have then you fundamentally agree with the liberal position on the second amendment, that it does not protect the right to own particularly dangerous things, we are only disagreeing on where to draw the line.

 

[blackangst1]

What is the coherent governing principle that makes rocket launchers ok but nuclear weapons not?

If the idea is that nuclear weapons are too dangerous for private citizens to have then you fundamentally agree with the liberal position on the second amendment, that it does not protect the right to own particularly dangerous things, we are only disagreeing on where to draw the line.

Isnt that usually how it works? Theres much about the liberal 2A view I disagree with.

 

[fskimospy]

Isnt that usually how it works? Theres much about the liberal 2A view I disagree with.

It seems like you agree with it to me.

Regardless, what’s the coherent principle that says no nukes but rocket launchers are protected?

 

[blackangst1]

It seems like you agree with it to me.

Regardless, what’s the coherent principle that says no nukes but rocket launchers are protected?

Whats the coherent reason AR15 style guns are targeted for restriction when handguns make up the most used weapon in murders in the US?

 

[fskimospy]

Whats the coherent reason AR15 style guns are targeted for restriction when handguns make up the most used weapon in murders in the US?

That’s not my position so I don’t know why you’re asking me.

Again, what coherent governing principle says rocket launchers are protected by the constitution and nuclear weapons are not?

 

[blackangst1]

That’s not my position so I don’t know why you’re asking me.

Again, what coherent governing principle says rocket launchers are protected by the constitution and nuclear weapons are not?

None. Just my opinion. In the same way many on the left think it should be unconstitutional to own semi-automatic weapons. No governing principle at all.

 

[Indus]

Whats the coherent reason AR15 style guns are targeted for restriction when handguns make up the most used weapon in murders in the US?

I might just have to get an AR10 myself to protect myself and the family. Not sure if NY allows it though..

https://twitter.com/x/status/1599462736856903680

 

[fskimospy]

None. Just my opinion. In the same way many on the left think it should be unconstitutional to own semi-automatic weapons. No governing principle at all.

So you’re saying you have no governing principle for your position? If so then that means the government can’t use your position because it has to be consistent.

 

[blackangst1]

I might just have to get an AR10 myself to protect myself and the family. Not sure if NY allows it though..

https://twitter.com/x/status/1599462736856903680

Thats a nice weapon, although not manufactured much any more. Ive not shot a 10, but I have a 15 in .223 and its a nice weapon for splunking.

 

[blackangst1]

So you’re saying you have no governing principle for your position? If so then that means the government can’t use your position because it has to be consistent.

That sounds great in theory; however, our government isnt really consistent when it comes to firearms. For example, they cant even agree what constitutes an "assault" rifle.

 

[Fenixgoon]

None. Just my opinion. In the same way many on the left think it should be unconstitutional to own semi-automatic weapons. No governing principle at all.

"shall not be infringed" is not synonymous with "cannot be regulated".

we regulate rights ALL THE TIME. you cannot use free speech to issue a threat against someone. the popo gonna come knockin.

 

[Captante]

The explanation for hand-guns not being targeted while semi-automatic rifles ARE is that it's possible to make a cool-headed rational argument that one is carrying a pistol purely for self-defense.

Unless open warfare breaks out in the streets nobody needs an AR-15 for self (or home) protection AND if war does break out the ACTUAL military (or professional-criminals for that matter) will kill you and your amateur-skilled pop-gun armed a$$ within seconds.

 

[fskimospy]

That sounds great in theory; however, our government isnt really consistent when it comes to firearms. For example, they cant even agree what constitutes an "assault" rifle.

That’s not true, the law is very clear on what constitutes one, even if you don’t agree with it.

That’s my point though, you’ve acknowledged your position is incoherent. That means it can’t be used.

 

[fskimospy]

The explanation for hand-guns not being targeted while semi-automatic rifles ARE is that it's possible to make a cool-headed rational argument that one is carrying a pistol purely for self-defense.

Unless open warfare breaks out in the streets nobody needs an AR-15 for self (or home) protection AND if war does break out the ACTUAL military will kill you and your pop-gun armed a$$ within seconds.

Handguns for self defense doesn’t make any sense either as the research clearly shows having a handgun makes you less safe.

 

[rommelrommel]

US gun control is a mess, everything back to the NFA should be revamped.

Less controls on the specifics of the firearm, more on who can carry or possess them.

Although, that is a pipe dream.

 

[Captante]

Handguns for self defense doesn’t make any sense either as the research clearly shows having a handgun makes you less safe.

Lies, damn lies and statistics?

I've taken "both sides" (lol) of that debate and it's completely pointless.

Regardless of what the numbers say, it remains plausible to say that carrying (for example) a 9mm pistol is only intended for self-defense.