192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
blatham
 
  3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 02:00 pm
Quote:
During his tenure as attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, now the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, closely coordinated with major oil and gas producers, electric utilities and political groups with ties to the libertarian billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch to roll back environmental regulations, according to over 6,000 pages of emails made public on Wednesday.

The publication of the correspondence comes just days after Mr. Pruitt was sworn in to run the E.P.A., which is charged with reining in pollution and
regulating public health.
NYT
Goodness. What a surprise. Keep watch on what this bastard does because he will not be messing around.

camlok
 
  0  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 02:02 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
ccording to over 6,000 pages of emails made public on Wednesday.


Who released over 6,ooo pages of emails?
blatham
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 02:20 pm
@camlok,
Pruitt was forced to make them public
Quote:
Last week, an Oklahoma judge ordered that emails from a January 2015 open records request be released by Tuesday. A further batch of emails is due to be turned over next week. The Center for Media and Democracy, which has made nine separate open records requests for Pruitt’s emails, said it will attempt to obtain all of the sought-after communications without exceptions.
Guardian
There will be a lot of reporting on this release and further releases if they happen. It won't be pretty.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  6  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 02:29 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Military-styled

"Styled" means it looks like the real thing. When a cop confronts someone brandishing a .38 he'll behave differently than when someone's carrying a military look-alike. That's why people are mistakenly shot dead for carrying a pellet gun or pointing a toy at someone.
Quote:
You would be surprised by the # of soldiers who actually purchase their own weapon for use while in the service.

I didn't know that. Interesting.
Quote:
A full auto M-16? You sure about that?

Yes. It was issued to me and I was instructed in its use.
Quote:
Define high-capacity?

Depends on what the gun is used for, right? If using a semi-auto, we're not allowed to have more than 6 rounds in a clip when hunting. I had to fit a block of wood in the clip to make a 9 mm legal to even carry in the woods. For self-defense I don't see why anyone would need more than 9 or 10 rounds which is what most semi-auto pistols hold. "Offensive capability" means that someone could enter an area and squeeze off a lot of shots without stopping to reload which would be very useful if your intention was to take out as many people as possible.
Quote:
I doubt you hunt.

Nice. Call a guy a liar! Christ, talk about "offensive capability"!

I used to use a bolt action 30-06 w/ 180gr r.n. ammo. It carried 4 rounds in a blind magazine. When I moved to the coast the 30-06 was overkill — heavy brush and cedar swamps as opposed to open meadows — so I now use a .357 lever-action carbine w/ 180 gr f.p. ammo, 9 rounds in the tube. My neck shots are within 30 yards — that's archery range.
Quote:
The sales don't increase because of the shooting, they increase because of the banning talk.

And much of that banning talk is spread by the pro-gun side. And guys who already have a ******* arsenal run out to spend more money on more guns. It's irrational. And really man, when someone shoots two dozen schoolkids do you really wonder why people might innocently question why so many kooks have guns and why nothing is done about it?
Quote:
The only reason to ban these guns is because they look scary.

Maybe the gun manufacturers can start making guns that look friendlier, like those pink ones they market to women.


hightor
 
  5  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 02:39 pm
Hey, where's all the tweets? Did they take his twitter account away from him again?
Baldimo
 
  0  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 03:03 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
"Styled" means it looks like the real thing. When a cop confronts someone brandishing a .38 he'll behave differently than when someone's carrying a military look-alike. That's why people are mistakenly shot dead for carrying a pellet gun or pointing a toy at someone.

People are shot carrying pellet or toy guns because they take the orange plug end from the barrel. All of these types of toys/pellet guns are by law suppose to have the orange tip in the barrel so law enforcement know it isn't a real gun. How they react to a gun, doesn't matter what type of gun they have. If you pull a gun on a cop whether it is a .38 or an AR-15, they are going to shoot you.

Quote:
I didn't know that. Interesting.

This isn't the majority of soldiers of course, but they can do it and I have seen them do it.

Quote:
Yes. It was issued to me and I was instructed in its use.

So you are a vet? Awesome, if you were using the M-16 that had full auto, that puts you in the military during the 70's or 80's. As far as I know, the majority of the US military moved to the M16A2, which wasn't full auto, in the mid to late 80's. What branch did you serve in?

Quote:
Depends on what the gun is used for, right? We're not allowed to have more than 6 rounds in a clip when hunting. I had to fit a block of wood in the clip to make the gun legal to even carry in the woods. For self-defense I don't see why anyone would need more than 9 or 10 rounds which is what most semi-auto pistols hold. "Offensive capability" means that someone could enter an area and squeeze off a lot of shots without stopping to reload which would be very useful if your intention was to take out as many people as possible.

What you are describing is law speak, what does the manufacture say is high capacity. I don't care what the laws say, none of them were put in place with common sense being used. They were arbatry # picked by politicians.

Most semi-auto handguns, depending on their size and the type of ammo they are using, do not come with 9 or 10 rounds unless it is a small gun. I have 2 S&W semi-auto hand guns, they both shoot the same ammo, 40 S&W, my "full" size hand gun, which has a 6" barrel holds 15 rounds in the mag and that is how the manufacture built the gun. My compact gun has a 4.5" barrel and only holds 10 rounds in the mag, once again this is how the manufacture produced the weapon. That is a far cry from what a politician or you "think's" standard capacity means.

How do you know how many rounds someone is going to need to protect themselves? Have you ever been in that sort of situation that allows you to speak with some level of authority on the subject?

Quote:
Nice. Call a guy a liar! Christ, talk about "offensive capability"!

I had to say something to get you to prove you hunted. I now accept your claim and appoligize for my rudeness.

Since you know a little bit about hunting, then you should know the rounds you use will rely on what you are hunting. Coyotes will take a different round than a deer, and a deer will take a different round than an Elk... so on and so forth. Do you deny that hunters use either 5.56 or .223 ammo for hunting smaller game like small deer and coyotes? I would never hunt an Elk with 5.56 or .223, I would use something more along the lines of a .308.

Quote:
And much of that banning talk is spread by the pro-gun side.

Sorry but you are wrong about this. Look at the reason for our talk, Mass wants to ban the very type of gun we are talking about, because of a single school shooting in their state. It's the anti-gun left that starts the talk and then push it past talk right into law, as Mass has done. Do you think it is paranoria that leads to the sales? Nope it's the actions of politicians and the anti-gun left.

Quote:
And guys who already have a ******* arsenal run out to spend more money on more guns. It's irrational.

If they are allowed to own guns and have no criminal records, what do you care if they own 10 or 20 rifles, they aren't harming you.

Quote:
And really man, when someone shoots two dozen schoolkids do you really wonder why people might innocently question why so many kooks have guns and why nothing is done about it?

This was taking place long before Sandyhook. Do you not remember the "assault weapons ban" from 1994? There has been a constant attack on gun rights by the anti-gun left. So many kooks? You are proposing that everyone who owns guns is a kook. As long as the left go after the right to own a gun, you will have people who fight against the grab.

Quote:
Maybe the gun manufacturers can start making guns that look friendlier, like those pink ones they market to women.

A gun looks how a gun looks. If the sight of a gun bothers you, maybe the problem is you and not the person who owns the gun. They do make guns in colors other than black and pink. In fact you can get a gun made in about any color you want if the company has the ability to do so. My buddies Ar-15 is a slight champagne color due to the protective coating that was applied to it. It doesn't look anymore "scary" than a black one. I have a chrome colored mini-14 Ranch rifle and it doesn't look scary either.



0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 03:14 pm
One of these is an "assault rifle" and is banned in NYS and one of these is not an "assault rifle" and not banned in NYS.

http://image.syracuse.com/home/syr-media/width960/img/post-standard/photo/2014/04/-8beeca155d601a69.JPG

Can you tell which is which?
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 03:40 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
You know nothing about guns and continue to prove that with every post you make.

That's a nice way to have a conversation — accuse someone of being totally ignorant. Okay.

My point, Baldimo, is that you don't need modern military-styled weapons to protect yourself in the case of a home intrusion. Maybe in the case of a zombie apocalypse but not to protect the cash register at the local bodega. The "militarized" guns being sold today are marketed specifically for that purpose — to pander to a certain type of customer:
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherjones.com%2Ffiles%2Fremington-rifle.jpg&f=1
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iur/?f=1&image_host=http%3A%2F%2Fhnn.us%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F154225-GunAd.png&u=http://historynewsnetwork.org/sites/default/files/154225-GunAd.png

Quote:

Designed to throw out a lot of lead : Says who? Source material? Have you ever fired an AR-15?

I never mentioned the AR-15. And yes, I've fired the M-16 on semi-auto and full auto. But just having the option of high-capacity magazines on a semi-auto changes the character of the weapon, gives it more offensive capability. As far as hunting goes, and for the type of hunting I do, a big, slow bullet works just fine and I don't need fifty rounds ready to chamber.

Quote:
What civilian arms race?

Every time there's a major gun incident, such as Sandy Hook, there's a predictable upswing in gun sales.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Frussia-insider.com%2Fsites%2Finsider%2Ffiles%2F1449081687-54d1b53019f1f-esq-alex-jones-gun.jpg&f=1


Speed limit is only 65...So you don't need anything but a 1990 Chevy Aveo



maporsche
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 03:44 pm
@giujohn,
That would indeed reduce the amount of deaths on our highways wouldn't it guijohn?


I own 3 guns and a fast car and I support laws curtailing both of those hobbies. I can lock my guns up, register for a FOID card, and forgo the cosmetic things on my AR15 to make it "look mean". I can also support higher penalties for speeding and even speed limiters on vehicles.
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 03:49 pm
@maporsche,
But you don't care about freedom, we do.
maporsche
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:03 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

But you don't care about freedom, we do.


All freedoms are balanced against how it impacts others freedoms McG. I care about freedom, I just apparently have a different view on how it impacts others (versus how little I'd really be impacted).
giujohn
 
  -3  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:05 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

That would indeed reduce the amount of deaths on our highways wouldn't it guijohn?


I own 3 guns and a fast car and I support laws curtailing both of those hobbies. I can lock my guns up, register for a FOID card, and forgo the cosmetic things on my AR15 to make it "look mean". I can also support higher penalties for speeding and even speed limiters on vehicles.


I doubt it. A large portion of those deaths are from DUI and if stiffer laws worked we wouldnt have murders. It's typical of liberals to run right to more laws...Laws that impact only the law abiding. But it makes the cheeseeaters feel better...Screw liberty, huh?

Every thing looks like a nail when all you own is a hammer.
maporsche
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:09 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

That would indeed reduce the amount of deaths on our highways wouldn't it guijohn?


I own 3 guns and a fast car and I support laws curtailing both of those hobbies. I can lock my guns up, register for a FOID card, and forgo the cosmetic things on my AR15 to make it "look mean". I can also support higher penalties for speeding and even speed limiters on vehicles.


I doubt it. A large portion of those deaths are from DUI and if stiffer laws worked we wouldnt have murders. It's typical of liberals to run right to more laws...Laws that impact only the law abiding. But it makes the cheeseeaters feel better...Screw liberty, huh?

Every thing looks like a nail when all you own is a hammer.


Not really proposing more laws...there are already laws against speeding. What I'm suggesting is a greater penalty. (I suppose a speed limiter would be a new law, but really one that car companies would implement and would apply to both law breakers and law abiding)

Make going 15 over the speed limit punishable with a minimum $1000 fine. It would sure curtail some of my behavior. Put cameras on all major roadways to catch this behavior.

No more laws needed. Don't need any insults either guijohn; I didn't insult you.
blatham
 
  2  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:11 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
But you don't care about freedom, we do.

Libertarians such a cute hybrid. Anarchists but without balls.
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:14 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
But you don't care about freedom, we do.

Libertarians such a cute hybrid. Anarchists but without balls.


...so many things I just deleted...
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:17 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

But you don't care about freedom, we do.


All freedoms are balanced against how it impacts others freedoms McG. I care about freedom, I just apparently have a different view on how it impacts others (versus how little I'd really be impacted).


Nonsense, your desire to restrict my freedoms is troubling. It seems that you are extremely selfish in what freedoms you think should be imposed on others. Isn't that how the [insert your favorite hate group] got started? Deciding which freedoms everyone esle should have so long as theirs were not imposed upon?
maporsche
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:21 pm
@giujohn,
Or maybe an approach like Finland has...income based traffic fines.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/

If I drive a Porsche 15mph over the limit, I'm deprived of 6 days income (which would be approaching $1000). The rule would apply even if I drove a Toyota Prius that fast.

I could get down with something like that too.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:23 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

maporsche wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

But you don't care about freedom, we do.


All freedoms are balanced against how it impacts others freedoms McG. I care about freedom, I just apparently have a different view on how it impacts others (versus how little I'd really be impacted).


Nonsense, your desire to restrict my freedoms is troubling. It seems that you are extremely selfish in what freedoms you think should be imposed on others. Isn't that how the [insert your favorite hate group] got started? Deciding which freedoms everyone esle should have so long as theirs were not imposed upon?


The fact that freedoms are currently restricted when it infringes on other peoples freedoms is nonsense to you?

The old adage..."my freedom to throw a punch ends when it connects with your nose" is nonsense?

This is how freedoms work in our country (and most other Western ones).
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:24 pm

McGentrix wrote:
Can you tell which is which?

All I know for sure is that they're both butt-ugly.
Baldimo wrote:
Do you deny that hunters use either 5.56 or .223 ammo for hunting smaller game like small deer and coyotes?

Those are commonly used around here, along with 30/30 and .243.
Baldimo wrote:
In fact you can get a gun made in about any color you want if the company has the ability to do so.

Can't beat walnut and blued steel as far as I'm concerned.
maporsche wrote:
I own 3 guns and a fast car and I support laws curtailing both of those hobbies.

That's pretty much the way I look at it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 22 Feb, 2017 04:36 pm
@McGentrix,
that's the funniest thing you've ever written here
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 07:33:51