Raider5678

Alright. I head that the propeller on the back had to be specially made because the water pressure it made caused the water to boil, resulting in bubbles that would pop and give their position away.

Again, I'm not sure you entirely understand it. There are state laws and federal laws. Let's say the federal law has no gun restrictions at all. A state, individually, can pass laws saying there are gun regulations in that particular state. The laws don't conflict with federal laws, they're simply adding to them. Unless the supreme court rules it unconstitutional, the laws stay. Now let's say the federal government outlaws automatic rifles. States can't legalize automatic rifles because the federal government has made it illegal. The state might not arrest people, but the federal government could at any time because they are breaking the federal law. Just not the state law. And if the supreme court rules that by repealing the federal law in that state that they've violated the constitution, they must repeal the law that repealed the federal law in their state.

Really? Wouldn't that give away their position? Bubbles?

You said it.

Actually, tell most gun owners "If you have a gun in your house, it increases your risk of injury. Practice good gun safety procedures all the time." and they'd probably outright agree with you.

I disagree with Trump a lot. I think he should be impeached. Does that mean I love to see every other thread being a complaint/mocking thread about him? It's a self-enforcing cycle. First one person complains, then a second person complains about that person as well, person one adds to the second person complaints, person two adds to the first persons, on and on and on. I'm not sure anyone in this thread is trying to understand all the contradictions. As far as I know, every single one of us can see them plain as day. It doesn't accomplish anything. That's all I'm saying. It just reinforces peoples opinion that they're right without a shadow of a doubt. The right does this same thing as well, why do you think they're so convinced they're always correct? They start complaining about someone, then other people join in, and then it might as well be a contest to see who can complain about the person the most. It's not that I don't think it's the best tactic, it's that I think it's an outright harmful tactic to either side that's doing it.

I'm assuming that's sarcasm because we're usually cursed at, called bigots, called sexist racists, etc, when we say we're pro-life at a public protest/gathering.

No. I didn't. Read again. You've taken the line out of context. However, I've placed it back into context so hopefully, this confusion will be cleared up. I fail to see how this adds anything to the discussion at hand.

I'm not sure good people just randomly become unhinged at any given moment, grab a gun, and go on a shooting spree. Or do you mean a stressed out person could snap at any moment, regardless if they're a good person or not?

So if you were only talking about past tense, and you weren't suggesting they could do it now, then why would you bother proposing a solution to a non-existent problem in your opinion? Edit after downvotes: I did not put words in your mouth. You said it was a problem that states had the ability to thwart federal laws on safety. I pointed out that they can't, and suggested that perhaps you don't fully understand the U.S. legal system, which is okay. It's not me being a Canadian racist, it's me suggesting something that's true. Then, after I stated that states can't thwart the federal government you try to tell me you never said it. Yet, I've quoted you directly saying that we might have to remove their ability to do so. Your posts have created a contradiction with themselves. You could always explain what you said better rather than trying to assert that you didn't say it at all, and downvoting the person for pointing it out.

Your own quote suggested that states could just thwart the federal government. They can't, and you very clearly stated it: Unless your opinion is that someone who breaks the law automatically thwarted the legal system even if they're caught and punished, then your quote doesn't hold up.

In the event he was trying to break down the door, do you think it'd be possible to get into a position to shoot him as soon as he walked through? Just curious. Either way, in many of these cases the shooter was wearing body armor anyways. So it probably wouldn't kill them unless you got the head. That being said, it'd definitely take their breath away.

Boy, do I love these "Let's all rail on the far right and republicans" threads where we ask people a question we've already made our minds up on. They accomplish so much. Like complaining. And mocking. And definitely not getting shit done.

Alright, then you should understand that if the State passes laws that contradict the federal government, the federal government overrules the state's regulations.

I'm not sure you understand how the legal system in the U.S. works. There's a 9-month course I took that went over it. It's a lot more complicated than just "if the court overruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds."

As far as I know, if the supreme court orders a state to do something, they have to do it. That hardly sounds like thwarting the federal laws.

I defined regulated as having strict laws, however, you are correct. I agree. I'm not sure I follow, but that's a whole other ballpark. If you start a thread on it I'll be happy to participate in it, however. States do have the right to put pretty much whatever restrictions they like on guns unless deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. I've participated a little in judiciary programs, however, I am not familiar with a case where the Supreme Court ruled that states had to repeal a gun law of any kind. I could be mistaken. So if the politics on a national level are too corrupt, states do have the ability to place their own laws. That being said, my state in particular is pretty corrupt.

Would you be opposed to universal background checks and mental fitness checks for anyone buying a gun?

On the issue of gun control? Take a look at Mexico. They have much stricter gun control. In the entire country of Mexico, you can only buy guns in one location. And you can only own handguns up to .380(home defense only), rifles up to .22, and shotguns up to 12 gauge. Everything else is legal only in the hands of law enforcement or the military. Nobody in the country may own more than 2 guns without justifying why they have them. Private citizens wishing to acquire a firearm and ammunition are required by law to do the following: Apply for a firearm acquisition permit from the General Directorate of the Federal Firearms Registry and Explosives Control (DGRFAFyCE) in the Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA) either by mail or in person by submitting the following: (for Mexican citizens, males under 40) Copy of liberated National Military Service card; (for females or males over 40) certified birth certificate. Foreigners must provide documentation establishing legal presence (FM2 card), Proof of income by submitting original employment letter stating position, time of employment and salary. If self-employed or retired, proof of such status, Criminal background check showing no convictions, issued by the state's Attorney General where applicant resides (dated no older than six months), Copy of proof of address (any utility bill in name of applicant; if different, head of household must sign a letter authorizing firearms and ammunition in the home), Copy of government-issued photo identification (Voter ID Card if Mexican citizen, passport and FM2 card if foreign citizen), If weapons are requested for shooting or hunting, must submit copy of hunting and/or shooting club membership card, indicating day, month and year of the beginning and end of validation, Copy of birth certificate. Name(s) and last names must match all other documents, and Copy of the Unique Key of Population Registry (Clave Única de Registro de Población - CURP) Analogous to US social security card and number. Upon being granted the firearm acquisition permit, fill out form and make payment of MX$95.00 (US$7.60) for Permit to Purchase Firearm, Accessories and/or Ammunition, Fill out form and make payment of MX$39.00 (US$3.12) for Registration of Firearm (one form and payment per gun), Contact the Directorate of Commercialization of Arms and Munitions (DCAM) by internet or in person to make payment of firearm. With all receipts and documentation, along with photo ID, appear in person at DCAM to pick up firearm. A temporary transportation permit (valid for 24 to 72hrs) is granted, which permits the owner to transport the firearm from DCAM to his or her home by personal or public transportation (ground or air). I see what you're trying to say, but just because you have well-regulated gun laws, doesn't mean there are no sides. It's a lot more complicated than that. Mexico has much stricter gun laws and much higher gun crime.

I guess? I'm not really sure what you're referring to. Anyways, somebody learned something because a boy in California was promptly arrested after threatening to shoot up his school as well.

And since both sides seem to have a relatively equal powered punch, it doesn't seem to go anywhere.

So I'll take that as you won't be providing any. No, I'm clearly not. However, if we've only gotten to the second page and you're already straw-manning my arguments, there is no point for me to continue debating this. Wait. So all these "political propaganda lies" weren't actually lies??? These things were true? And not to go off on a tangent, but if it's true then why are we so bothered about knowing it? Jeeze, I've been spending the last year thinking the Russian meddling was them telling lies and fake news to trick people, not revealing the truth. 1. That's a click-bait headline. "Conservatives meltdown as twitter annihilates fake accounts" I'm not going to bother clicking it because I'd like to avoid 50 million ads being shoved in my face. 2. You're pretty thick. You were claiming that accounts shouldn't be anonymous if they monetized themselves, and now you're advocating EVERYONE on social media must reveal theirtrue name? That must be what you're saying. Because I very clearly said, "you can't monetize without proving your identity". You have to provide a phone number at the very minimum to use thumbnails, often much more to monetize. But, since you've chosen to focus on all accounts now instead of just ones that are monetized...... I seriously disagree.

Nuclear submarines already use electrolysis devices to extract oxygen from salt water. Massive ones. They'd by default, also get hydrogen. So I'm not sure why they'd want to bring brine along with them to use instead of the salt water around them.....

Oh my god. Those assholes. Saying Donald Trump is corrupt and that we have to stop trying to blame everything on immigrants. What a bunch of crack pots. No. You haven't. The proof I asked for was to show me a youtube channel posting crackpot/political propaganda with more than 1 million subscribers. I showed that the first one wasn't crazy, they were, for the most part, disproving conspiracies. The second one is denouncing racism and saying we have to do more to help those in need. Now perhaps you wish to claim that's evil political propaganda, etc, but I choose not to. Read my quote below. You haven't provided the proof I asked for. Your problem, specifically, wasn't that there were anonymous people online. It was that you believed there were massive cults of them spreading political lies and propaganda. You've yet to show me one that does. However, if that's not what you're worried about, and you're just upset that anonymous people make money online, I still disagree. You've yet to show me a large internet troll. However, I've already answered this question. I've answered this too. Nothing. First, Youtube and Social Media know who it is. It's not like the government couldn't track them down or anything. You can't monetize without proving your identity. Next, why should people have to know? If they want to watch someone anonymously, why do you say they must know? What difference does it make? I have problems with that suggestion because you're going to make a lot of youtube channels, that produce good content, have to reveal who they are publically. I don't see why it's necessary. You based your argument on the idea that there are internet trolls. There are. I said they weren't that popular, you've yet to prove they are. I fail to see what the point of making all YouTubers reveal themselves publically. Just because you want to know who they are?