Why i'm a conservative republican.

[The Barbarian]

i di just that and was shocked and disgusted by the promotion and use of violence and threats of violence i found, especially disturbing is how often this violence was directed towards children. ....Then i noticed i had accidentally googles "unhinged hateful conservatives"

It would be funny, if it wasn't for the fact that these guys so often act on their threats. As usual with right wing nuts, it's Jewish Americans who are usually targeted:

NEW YORK (JTA) – The Anti-Defamation League found that 3,044 total acts of hate, extremism, anti-Semitism and terror were committed in the United States in 2018. 1,879 of these were anti-Semitic acts - including assault, vandalism and harassment.


Of these 1,879 acts of anti-Semitism, 249 (13 percent) were attributable to known extremist groups or individuals inspired by extremist ideology, according to the ADL’s classification system. In a call, Oren Segal, director of the ADL Center on Extremism, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that all 249 acts that they were able to attribute to extremists were carried out by white supremacists.


According to the ADL, “this category includes people associated with white supremacist groups or ideologies, including but not limited to neo-Nazis, the alt right, racist skinheads, Christian Identity, traditional white supremacists and white supremacist prison gangs.”
Every Extremist Anti-Semitic Incident Tracked By ADL Was Carried Out By White Supremacists, Org Says

I’m also a college professor, and appeared on Carlson’s show in April to defend my New Republic article about why colleges have a right to reject hateful speakers. While my appearance didn’t generate the same controversy as Durden’s, a wave of people contacted my school, Colby College in Maine, in an attempt to have me fired (they apparently missed the irony of trying to get someone fired for their speech, about speech, because you disagree with that speech). In addition, my colleagues in the English department, plus a few lucky senior administrators, have been hapless recipients of racist and anti-Semitic diatribes, thus burdening our IT staff.Meanwhile, I received thousands of insults and threats. Beginning mere minutes after my appearance, I was deluged with emails and instant messages calling me a “(bleep) liberal idiot,” “(bleep) snowflake,” “ignorant and hypocritical (bleep),” “(bleep) Nazi,” and “Jew (bleep).” Strangers threatened to break my legs, scalp me, and make me “eat a bullet.” One wished, in all-caps, “Hopefully you get robbed and killed by an illegal immigrant that was deported five times and he leaves you to bleed to death slowly so you have time [to] realize how (bleep) stupid you were all along.” There have also been repeated and likely actionable defamation attempts, which I’m still dealing with. (It’s also worth noting that I’m a straight, white, male, tenure-track professor at a top-tier institution that supports my public engagement, which is to say my experience with strangers eroticizing my slow death has been less traumatic than most professors’. I can only imagine—though I’d rather not—the bile directed privately at Durden.)
How the Right Stifles Speech With Threats and Violence

I'd have to say, given Carlson's behavior and the kind of swamp things that listen to his show, this professor should have anticipated that kind of perverted sludge as a foreseeable consequence.

Which precisely validates his point.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually the biggest part, 700 billion, was from Bush's program.

So now it's a good thing, since Bush also took part? Things do change, don't they?

 

[Need answers]

Who's gonna stand against all of the conservative socialist?

No they don't.

No they don't.

They don't want to silence either.

Since none of this is true, then democratic has nothing to do with it.

Liberals dont want our guns. Ok sure.

 

[Quartermaine]

Liberals dont want our guns. Ok sure.

do you have actual evidence otherwise?

 

[Need answers]

do you have actual evidence otherwise?

They want to ban the AR-15. But thats just because it looks scary to liberals. However its no different than any other semi auto rifle.

 

[pescador]

Liberals dont want our guns. Ok sure.

I am a liberal and I own a bunch of guns. What in your thinking leads you to classify people with different politics than yours as being all of one mind?

I suggest that you pay more attention to the Word and Christian thought than secular (divisive) political BS.

 

[pescador]

They want to ban the AR-15. But thats just because it looks scary to liberals. However its no different than any other semi auto rifle.

If you understood that AR-15s are VERY different from other automatic rifles you wouldn't make such a statement. AR-15s are military weapons designed to kill humans with tumbling bullets at relatively short distances. How is that the same as a semi-automatic sporting rifles, which are designed to deliver stable bullets at long distances?

 

[Darkhorse]

If you understood that AR-15s are VERY different from other automatic rifles you wouldn't make such a statement. AR-15s are military weapons designed to kill humans with tumbling bullets at relatively short distances. How is that the same as a semi-automatic sporting rifles, which are designed to deliver stable bullets at long distances?

No well-designed gun makes its bullets tumble. This kills the accuracy and makes them less effective.

If the bullets started tumbling, they wouldn't be able to travel hundreds of yards at 3000 feet per second, which the AR-15s are well known for.

 

[Quartermaine]

They want to ban the AR-15. But thats just because it looks scary to liberals. However its no different than any other semi auto rifle.

so no evidence

 

[Need answers]

If you understood that AR-15s are VERY different from other automatic rifles you wouldn't make such a statement. AR-15s are military weapons designed to kill humans with tumbling bullets at relatively short distances. How is that the same as a semi-automatic sporting rifles, which are designed to deliver stable bullets at long distances?

You are referring to the 223 shell. You can buy that caliber in other semi auto rifles as well. Do you want to ban them too? Also the Ar-15 comes in other calibers as well. So your post is not very informed. All guns are meant to kill. Who would want one if they didn't? The AR15 is actually more rugged than other rifles, that's one of the reasons they are so popular.

 

[Need answers]

so no evidence

Sorry I was working.

 

[Need answers]

No well-designed gun makes its bullets tumble. This kills the accuracy and makes them less effective.

If the bullets started tumbling, they wouldn't be able to travel hundreds of yards at 3000 feet per second, which the AR-15s are well known for.

THey actually don't start to tumble until they reach longer distances, contrary to what our liberal friend said, but what do I know?

 

[Need answers]

This former police officer Refutes this ignorant liberal. Please check this out, it shows how misinformed gun banning liberals are. They think they are talking about a AR-15 but they are actually talking about a 50 cal. sniper rifle. Wow, how ignorant can you be?

 

[Need answers]

I am a liberal and I own a bunch of guns. What in your thinking leads you to classify people with different politics than yours as being all of one mind?

I suggest that you pay more attention to the Word and Christian thought than secular (divisive) political BS.

No, been there done that. Im pretty tired of religion.

 

[The Barbarian]

No well-designed gun makes its bullets tumble. This kills the accuracy and makes them less effective.

When I was in the AF, and was trained in the M-16, the range supervisor showed us the difference in a gelatin block hit a close range by a hunting rifle and by a round from an M-16. Huge difference. The M-16 bullet does not tumble at all, until it hits flesh. Then, because the mass is uneven, it will tumble, producing massive damage.

The range really matters very little.

 

[Need answers]

When I was in the AF, and was trained in the M-16, the range supervisor showed us the difference in a gelatin block hit a close range by a hunting rifle and by a round from an M-16. Huge difference. The M-16 bullet does not tumble at all, until it hits flesh. Then, because the mass is uneven, it will tumble, producing massive damage.

The range really matters very little.

If someone has an issue with 223 ammo, why ban the Ar-15? The AR-15 comes in other calibers as well, and the 223 round comes in bolt action rifles and other semi autos too. Will we ban bolt action rifles too? Isnt it really just the AR-15 they want to ban? It has nothing to do with the ammunition. They simply want to ban it because it looks more intimidating than other rifles. But thats silly.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
When I was in the AF, and was trained in the M-16, the range supervisor showed us the difference in a gelatin block hit a close range by a hunting rifle and by a round from an M-16. Huge difference. The M-16 bullet does not tumble at all, until it hits flesh. Then, because the mass is uneven, it will tumble, producing massive damage.

The range really matters very little.

If someone has an issue with 223 ammo, why ban the Ar-15?

I'm just pointing out facts, not making any other claims. It helps to know what one is talking about, if one's going to talk.

 

[Need answers]

Barbarian observes:
When I was in the AF, and was trained in the M-16, the range supervisor showed us the difference in a gelatin block hit a close range by a hunting rifle and by a round from an M-16. Huge difference. The M-16 bullet does not tumble at all, until it hits flesh. Then, because the mass is uneven, it will tumble, producing massive damage.

The range really matters very little.



I'm just pointing out facts, not making any other claims. It helps to know what one is talking about, if one's going to talk.

I read just now that its the 223 full metal jacket that tumbles on impact. Thanks for the facts, i appreciate it. I was just asking your opinion about the ar-15

 

[The Barbarian]

I can see the concern about any rifle that would take large magazines, and could be easily converted to full automatic.

The problem lies in the fact that the 2nd Amendment doesn't put any limits on what weapons are allowed. Common law has established that reasonable limits are constitutional, but what a "reasonable limit" might be, is controversial.

 

[Quartermaine]

Sorry I was working.

no surprise here...still no evidence