Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "GALVATRON + Mini-Con CLENCH Transformers Armada Giga-Con complete 2003 240524A"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/unicron-trilogy/armada/giga-con-class/galvatron+clench-240524A/t-DSC07698.jpg)
![Visit shop.seibertron.com to buy "GAME OLDER Transformers BotBots Series 4 Retro Replays 2020 game cartridge"](https://www.seibertron.com/images/ebay/botbots/series-4/retro-replays/game-older/t-botbot.jpg)
Caelus wrote:Moonshot wrote:Shall not be infringed.
"We've already accepted that there are limits to what "arms" citizens can bear. "Arms" such as tanks, fighter jets, explosives, etc. are not protected by the second amendment - so the line between what is and isn't protected is well established to be negotiable."
Tanks, jets and explosives are not "arms". Anyone with common sense knows that.Moonshot wrote:2nd amendment argument over.
"No... we can amend the constitution, the constitution itself says so:
"Article V (Article 5 - Mode of Amendment) - The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.""
And good luck with amending the 2nd one. So basically, argument over.Moonshot wrote:They had very capable guns back then as well, "machine" guns even.
Yeah, describing guns in 1776 as 'very capable' only makes sense if you're living in a movie. Small arms were crap, and the Gatling Gun was a 170lb beast that required four men to operate, and didn't come around for several decades after the second amendment was passed.
Why doesnt anyone speak out about banning knives when someone stabs 20 people or trucks when they run over dozens? Because it would be stupid to blame the knives and trucks? Yes. Same as guns.
"I get tired of hearing this argument EVERY time, but maybe if the response is put out there enough, it'll eventually sink in.
Outside of video games, stabbing 19 people is far more difficult than shooting 59, so 'mass-knifings' could never compare to mass-shootings. Guns are simply more effective than knifes - if that weren't the case, people wouldn't shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars for a firearm, and the Iroquois would still control the eastern seaboard."
Obviously u have not Googled mass stabbings. First one to pop up was 29 dead and 300 wounded in China. Just for one example.
"As far as vehicles, we intensely regulate the design, sale, and licensing of cars and trucks because they are so dangerous. We already have cars with safety features that prevent drivers from hitting things (like people), even when they try to do so, and those features will doubtless become more common. Show me a Westworld-Style safety feature that makes it impossible to shoot a gun at a person, and I'll be more indulgent with respect to gun ownership."
We also intensely regulate the sale and licensing of guns because they can be dangerous in the wrong hands, just like vehicles. We also have laws against people shooting people, but that doesnt stop them. I think Seibertron himself can attest to that living in Chicago; very tight guns laws there but many shootings every day. Only way to fix the problem u guys are talking about is banning all guns in this country. Because if even one got through and was used in a shooting it would defeat the purpose. Also the genie is out of the bottle with 3D printing of guns as well. Good luck keeping guns out of the US with the US/Mexican border as it is now as well. When I was in the army I was stationed in San Antonio and spent a lot of time as a medic on that border. It is actually like the wild west there.
Seibertron wrote:Moonshot wrote:Looks like some people are already tired of all the winning, lol.
What "winning" are you talking about? I don't think I've seen any winning.Moonshot wrote:Shall not be infringed. 2nd amendment argument over. They had very capable guns back then as well, "machine" guns even. Why doesnt anyone speak out about banning knives when someone stabs 20 people or trucks when they run over dozens? Because it would be stupid to blame the knives and trucks? Yes. Same as guns. Lots of times when government takes citizens guns, it leads to mass executions soon after. Germany, 7 mill dead, Turkey 1 mill mostly Christians, Soviet Union 50 mil dead, China 60 mill, and I could go on and on. That is the reason "they" want to take US citizens guns; control plain and simple.
So you're just dismissing my call for a happy medium and just gonna go with "this is just how it is? deal with it!" I didn't say ban all guns or take away everyone's guns. The idea of us being able to defend ourselves against our government or invading armies if needed is appealing. Can we have it both ways or is that the problem in and of itself? Something needs to change.
Moonshot wrote:Caelus wrote:Moonshot wrote:Shall not be infringed.
"We've already accepted that there are limits to what "arms" citizens can bear. "Arms" such as tanks, fighter jets, explosives, etc. are not protected by the second amendment - so the line between what is and isn't protected is well established to be negotiable."
Tanks, jets and explosives are not "arms". Anyone with common sense knows that.
Moonshot wrote:2nd amendment argument over.
No... we can amend the constitution, the constitution itself says so...
And good luck with amending the 2nd one. So basically, argument over.
Moonshot wrote:Obviously u have not Googled mass stabbings. First one to pop up was 29 dead and 300 wounded in China. Just for one example.
"As far as vehicles, we intensely regulate the design, sale, and licensing of cars and trucks because they are so dangerous. We already have cars with safety features that prevent drivers from hitting things (like people), even when they try to do so, and those features will doubtless become more common. Show me a Westworld-Style safety feature that makes it impossible to shoot a gun at a person, and I'll be more indulgent with respect to gun ownership."
[size=150]We also intensely regulate the sale and licensing of guns because they can be dangerous in the wrong hands, just like vehicles.
We also have laws against people shooting people, but that doesnt stop them.
I think Seibertron himself can attest to that living in Chicago; very tight guns laws there but many shootings every day.
Only way to fix the problem u guys are talking about is banning all guns in this country. Because if even one got through and was used in a shooting it would defeat the purpose.
Good luck keeping guns out of the US with the US/Mexican border as it is now.
When I was in the army I was stationed in San Antonio and spent a lot of time as a medic on that border. It is actually like the wild west there.
Moonshot wrote:What winning? I saw this list, seems some consider it winning, at least whoever made it:
President Trump
Just so everyone is clear. Here is why we have the Electoral College, very smart for its time, and way smarter than Democrats of today.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
Caelus wrote:Moonshot wrote:What winning? I saw this list, seems some consider it winning, at least whoever made it:
President Trump
So for proof that Trump is doing well at his job, your source is Trump saying that he did well at his job.
I can't think of a better, clearer demonstration of the fundamental problem we've run into as a nation.Just so everyone is clear. Here is why we have the Electoral College, very smart for its time, and way smarter than Democrats of today.
Well, if we're going to move to that level of maturity, then I say your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
Actually Clinton won 487-489 counties. I won't bother commenting on the rest of what you plagiarized.When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
But it seems fine for the minority of American citizens, living in the culturally homogeneous, sparsely populated rural areas of our country to not only speak for the rest of our country, but to decide its fate...? Because that's what happened, and it's happened multiple times now.
You can dress it up in someone else's smarmy words to make it look like some brilliant element of our democracy, but it's not. It's a vestige of a time when our country was much smaller and less interdependent. Owing to our electoral college system, the votes of Americans living in densely populated areas (which carry much of the country's tax burden) count for less than the votes of Americans living in sparsely populated areas. That's not 'protecting' rural conservatives, that's disenfranchising the rest of the country.
Although, I suppose it does harkin back to that old idea of owning land being a prerequisite for voting. The Romans would be so proud.
Oh, interesting side note: Hillary won 8 of the original 13 colonies.
Moonshot wrote:Oh and we dont live in a democracy, its a constitutional republic.
Moonshot wrote:Just so everyone is clear. Here is why we have the Electoral College, very smart for its time, and way smarter than Democrats of today.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
Caelus wrote:I won't bother commenting on the rest of what you plagiarized.
Seibertron wrote:Caelus wrote:I won't bother commenting on the rest of what you plagiarized.
What? He copied and pasted all of that? I actually thought he wrote a very passionate message out detailing all of Captain Carrot's "accomplishments".
Seibertron wrote:Caelus wrote:I won't bother commenting on the rest of what you plagiarized.
What? He copied and pasted all of that? I actually thought he wrote a very passionate message out detailing all of Captain Carrot's "accomplishments".
Seibertron wrote:Caelus wrote:I won't bother commenting on the rest of what you plagiarized.
What? He copied and pasted all of that? I actually thought he wrote a very passionate message out detailing all of Captain Carrot's "accomplishments".
Moonshot wrote:I was just trying to poke at anti-Trump people with his "win" list because I think its hilarious how tore up they get.
Awesomepow wrote:This thread should go.Admins shouldn't have posted this news in the first place.I respect everyone's opinions and I am 100% for POTUS Trump to be clear.Whiners,stop saying things like "Captian Carrot".C'mon.Seriously.
Awesomepow wrote:This thread should go.Admins shouldn't have posted this news in the first place.I respect everyone's opinions and I am 100% for POTUS Trump to be clear.Whiners,stop saying things like "Captian Carrot".C'mon.Seriously.
Ultimate Weapon1 wrote:Neither, I just don't like it when the 1st admendement is one sided.
Ultimate Weapon1 wrote:Neither, I just don't like it when the 1st admendement is one sided.
Caelus wrote:Ultimate Weapon1 wrote:Neither, I just don't like it when the 1st admendement is one sided.
So you feel it would bbe more fair and balanced - in the context of our nation as a whole - if people didn't share anti-Trump sentiments on their personal websites.
Return to Transformers Cartoons and Comics Forum
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Bumblevivisector, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Majestic-12 [Bot], Spider5800, Yahoo [Bot]