Modded Mustang Forums banner

101 - 120 of 142 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
No. They are not carry guns. There has been almost 150 years of development since those guns were new (Colt single action army 1873). There are a lot better gun on the market nowadays.:smile2:
The point I was attempting to make with my "I don't modify my guns" statement is that my carry guns are essentially bone stock. Nothing that an aggressive lawyer can say I did to make my gun "more deadly" or to put the image that I'm a wanna be cop/superhero/hero complex type. I'm just a guy, carrying a gun to defend my life with. I use box stock ammunition, I use a factory gun (with new grips due to wearing the old ones smooth), it has a stock trigger, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Now that Trump has declared an emergency you can pretty much kiss your guns goodbye.......

John
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Now that Trump has declared an emergency you can pretty much kiss your guns goodbye.......

John
You act like a president declaring a national emergency is sometime new. According to the link below Trump has declared four. Obama declared twelve. Bush declared thirteen. And Clinton declared nine. There are 31 national emergencies still open. One goes back to the Carter administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
 

·
Powered by LSx tears
Joined
·
21,466 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
You act like a president declaring a national emergency is sometime new. According to the link below Trump has declared four. Obama declared twelve. Bush declared thirteen. And Clinton declared nine. There are 31 national emergencies still open. One goes back to the Carter administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
Some time back in here someone said and this isn’t a direct quote is it’s not the number that matters it’s what’s being proposed or pushed through. It may have been Woodman if I remember correctly on the topic of Executive Orders.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/15/695203852/many-presidents-have-declared-emergencies-but-not-like-trump-has
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodman

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
Some time back in here someone said and this isn’t a direct quote is it’s not the number that matters it’s what’s being proposed or pushed through. It may have been Woodman if I remember correctly on the topic of Executive Orders.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/15/695203852/many-presidents-have-declared-emergencies-but-not-like-trump-has
Yes, that was me that said it was the content, not the number that mattered.

However, that was specifically to Executive Orders (EO's), not declarations of National Emergency.

Now, all feelings aside, isn't securing our borders a serious thing? I don't care how many "illegal" aliens are illegal due to overstayed visas, or the "official" number of illegal aliens that strangely hasn't risen in over a decade (which is probably dramatically underreported). I care about the principle of it.

My issue isn't with people coming here to make a better life, and doing it legally and the very hard way due to how our immigration laws are. They do need serious revision. My issue is that you cannot have anything secure if people can just walk across the border without announcing themselves, their intentions, or anything else. No other country in the world allows you to just stroll across the border, take up residency, reap the benefits of a citizen (emergency services, food/shelter handouts, etc). It's really a national security issue, and I do feel it's an official "emergency".

Does that mean I think a wall is the right thing? Not really. I feel in strategic spots it may help, but it's one of many things we should be doing.

It's really not that big of a stretch to ask if you lock your doors on your car and your house vs securing the borders. Will a locked car keep a determined person out? No. Will a wall keep a determined person out? Also no. But, it will keep most out, and that is an important thing. We cannot have a secure country if anyone can come in and stay here unchallenged.

That is not anti-immigration. It's anti-crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
You act like a president declaring a national emergency is sometime new. According to the link below Trump has declared four. Obama declared twelve. Bush declared thirteen. And Clinton declared nine. There are 31 national emergencies still open. One goes back to the Carter administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
Yet none of them were complete bullshit like this one...…Republicans have now allowed Trump to open the door to whatever Dem president who wants to enact a pet project. You rail about how Obama used it for Ocare yet when Trump does it it's OK. Again, hypocrisy on a grand scale.

John
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Yet none of them were complete bullshit like this one...…Republicans have now allowed Trump to open the door to whatever Dem president who wants to enact a pet project. You rail about how Obama used it for Ocare yet when Trump does it it's OK. Again, hypocrisy on a grand scale.

John
You must have read this post first. Because I don't agree with this national emergency. All I said is that its legal according to the laws that Congress has passed. I personally wish they would fix them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
Yet none of them were complete bullshit like this one...…Republicans have now allowed Trump to open the door to whatever Dem president who wants to enact a pet project. You rail about how Obama used it for Ocare yet when Trump does it it's OK. Again, hypocrisy on a grand scale.

John
A national emergency and an executive order are not the same thing.

National emergencies can be overruled by either the house or the senate, don't feel like looking it up right now. National emergencies don't take away anyone's civil rights. Illegal aliens DO NOT have civil rights. A national emergency declared by the president cannot take away civil rights, so the threats to declare guns a national emergency is just talk. The Democrats wouldn't have let it not happening before keep them from doing it if it would work.

It's smoke and mirrors. Trump is using the powers he has to get what he wants, like EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM. It's not anything concerning, or different, from any other president. It may not even be held up depending on how the votes for it go.

Now, since you keep bringing up EO's (which this is not), and claiming none of them were "complete bullshit", I'd love to understand how forcing an unconstitutional tax on every single American (the "affordable" health care act which forces every person to purchase insurance whether they want it or not) isn't the same level of "bullshit" as wanting to attempt to keep our borders secure.

Again, I'm not "for" the wall. I'm also not "against" the wall. I see it as one of many useful tools to accomplish the goal. Other presidents, including Obama, agreed just a few years ago and put five times as much money towards the wall. What is different now vs then other than the guy signing the paperwork? Bill Clinton extracted a child from the country at GUNPOINT, and it wasn't nearly as big a deal as this wall. There weren't government shutdowns over it, there weren't impeachment threats over it, no one cried when Obama wanted to pay $25B for the very same wall. If it is so useless, why does it matter who is in charge?
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Bill Clinton extracted a child from the country at GUNPOINT, and it wasn't nearly as big a deal as this wall.
If that is the child that was sent back to Cuba then I remember it. That was perhaps the worst visual image I could imagine. A force of battle ready agents complete with battle armor and automatic rifles pulling a crying child from the arms of its guardians. Yes there was a crowd outside attempting to interfere and, according to Wikipedia, a veiled threat had been made. But the picture was damning. It was a picture of the full force of government power turned against a family. It is unfortunate that it couldn't have been handled differently.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151012155050-01-elian-gonzalez-rewind-restricted-super-169.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodman

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
If that is the child that was sent back to Cuba then I remember it. That was perhaps the worst visual image I could imagine. A force of battle ready agents complete with battle armor and automatic rifles pulling a crying child from the arms of its guardians. Yes there was a crowd outside attempting to interfere and, according to Wikipedia, a veiled threat had been made. But the picture was damning. It was a picture of the full force of government power turned against a family. It is unfortunate that it couldn't have been handled differently.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151012155050-01-elian-gonzalez-rewind-restricted-super-169.jpg
Yes, that's the one.

I get frustrated with the double standard. The wall was ok for all the other presidents to piss money at, but no, Trump is the root of all evil, and must be opposed at every juncture. I saw that the LGBT community is AGAINST him asking Iran to decriminalize homosexuality. Why? Why would they be against that?

And the issue with that kid, who for whatever reason it was so damn important to extricate at gunpoint and send back to Cuba, but now we have sanctuary cities, and the idea of a wall is so horrific? It doesn't add up. People are being led by their feelings, and ignoring the facts. I've said for years we are in the post truth era. The facts don't actually matter anymore, it's all about the spin, and what the media wants us to think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
I know when it came to keeping the military funded and fully “strong” some use to be all over that topic seemingly angle depending.

I guess now since this I see full filling a campaign promise then a slight step will be taken back on this type of stuff and the opinions just don’t seem as strong when talking about military readiness and keeping it fully funded. Makes me think about that whole hypocrisy topic. Yea but anyway...


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/18/florida-military-bases-could-lose-177-million-trumps-border-wall.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
My bullets don't discriminate nor do they do racial profiling. They only people they seek out are those who intend to do me or my family harm! LMAO!!! :)
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
I guess now since this I see full filling a campaign promise then a slight step will be taken back on this type of stuff and the opinions just don’t seem as strong when talking about military readiness and keeping it fully funded. Makes me think about that whole hypocrisy topic. Yea but anyway...
If you haven't seen things like this done before you haven't been paying attention. I did a couple of assignments in AF Research & Development. Senator Ted Kennedy was pretty much against military spending except when the money was being spent in Massachusetts. Then he was all for jobs in his state. I saw funding for programs live and die in a single budget cycle. The entire military budget is one big compromise. A balance among air, sea and land forces. A balance between current capability and future capability. I sat in on a briefing once about the B-1 program. The prime contractor made sure that at least one part was made in every state. There is not a single member of Congress that doesn't want money spent in his state. And the program was funded.

The KC-135 development was interesting. The Air Force killed the program wanting more KC-10s instead. Boeing retrofitted a luxury 707 complete with all first class seats and a wet bar. They flew it to DC and gave free flights to Congressmen and Senators. Suddenly all funding was restored.

It is a plain, simple fact that none of the troops in the field have anything unless the equipment survives the political process that drives the budget. I'm old enough to remember the "Hollow Forces" of the 1970s. People know that it was Reagan that restored our military capability. What most don't know is that things had gotten so bad Carter started it with his 1980 budget. (Reagan's first budget went into effect in for FY1981-1982.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodman

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
P.S. Reagan wasn't much liked by liberals. In the mid-1980s I attended a cultural anthropology presentation by a researcher studying our indigenous population. She came equipped with tons of facts and she talked about how the cuts in Reagan's 1980 budget hurt. She stumbled a bit when it was pointed out that the 1980 and most of 1981 budgets were Carter's. She then went back to talking about how bad Reagan was.

The anthropology students were so programmed that they couldn't see it either even when it was pointed out. Reagan was elected in 1980. He didn't take office until late January 1981. He had some influence over the budget that started in October 1981 but the first budget he had total influence over was 1982s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodman

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Eagle2000GT

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
I understand how some will rationalize this and various things going on since 2017 by any means be it directly or roundabout ways. Good to see some lawmakers point out the hypocrisy though.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/gop-rep-republicans-would-be-going-nuts-if-obama-had-declared-emergency-to-bypass-congress/
As I said, the "emergency declaration" is very easily overturned.

Secondly, as I also said, is it not an emergency? We have state governors ignoring federal law to have sanctuary cities/states. We have an unknown number of illegal aliens in the nation using up our services. We have an entire political party attempting to use them to gain (illegal) votes and attempting to give them the ability to vote.

You don't see this as an emergency? I sure do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
I see the problem even when I was a teen I would hear about it about those who employ illegal aliens to work in their houses, on their houses instead of contractors, in fields etc... to take advantage of them and to also save their money because they are paying them a lot less than they would pay a citizen.

So there are quite a few problems around the entire issue that the lawmakers should address but to say “ oh crap all of sudden now this is a national emergency so we must back this guy in this” nah wouldn’t personally go there. It’s a complex ongoing issue that some mid evil wall isn’t gonna wipe out so all of the lawmakers should do their job and address it no matter what a candidate and now president boasted about or promised those who suck in his every word and promise.

It seems as if politically he has backed himself into a weird corner with broad promises and in a way put some of those that support him or the party in a weird corner trying to in various ways back some of his mess. Terrible situation imo socially and politically if one pays attention to it daily it’s borderline draining.

I’m not a Republican by any means but damn man hopefully with some of this crap this guy constantly has going on he doesn’t in the end historically leave a nasty stain on the party or become the face of it for years to come The Party of Trump. Imo it does none of us any justice and all things considered with him will cause a lasting divide. I think the only way around that is if for some of his mess to be called out from within sometime not this weird silence, blind eye, excuses or bending to back him in some cases. Idk man starting to ramble and go all over the place more Old Camp for me and time to get off of here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: socialist
101 - 120 of 142 Posts
Top