If the left and right could see through my eyes.

Each side creates a partisan caricature of the other side which is easier to attack. The caricatures present a distorted truth that leaves out important context which would work against the partisan narrative. Each side sees the other as trying to destroy America which makes bipartisanship all but impossible in most cases. When character assassination is more prevalent than cooperation the outcome is predictable. Each side pointing the finger outward ensures not only a continuation of these hyper-partisan times but also an increase in partisanship. When large swaths of America see hyper-partisan news channels such as CNN and Fox News as objective then what we see are droves of people who seek to have their biases confirmed.

The fix is simple but goes against our nature thus few will take the road less traveled. The fix is a fearless and brutally honest to a nearly masochistic level introspection. Once we realize that we are every bit the problem if not more than they are is when the change begins to happen. As our bias diminishes we will see that the other side is not the evil thing we were led to believe they were. As the anger subsides and our objectivity increases we will come to see that we have much more in common with the other side than differences. When we see the other side as humans, flawed like us yet like us doing what they feel is best for their family, their tribe, then we can relate as we are doing the same. I know this because I have done and will continue to do for the rest of my life the introspective process I have spoke of here.

A question. What are some of the things the other side gets wrong about your side? I ask in hopes that some of the misinformation and propaganda can be dispelled.

 

Well, the other side think AR-15's are scary looking things.

They also are low information and don't know what the definition of "arms" was in 1787 as used in "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

The definition of "arms" in 1787 was..."The weapons of war."

 

Do you consider it a violation of your 2nd amendment rights that you’re not allowed to own and operate a javelin missile launcher?

 

Well other than the fact that leftist and Democrats have been running the same campaign and making the same claims for the last fifty years and never bothered with an apology. As I said in another thread earlier if democrats want civility they can start by offering some. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting my doctor says it's bad for my health.

 

Oh but I can provided I can can cough up the million or so and pass the necessary licensing requiremets.

 

If you need a license, then it’s a not a right as it can be denied. Do you believe your 2nd amendment rights are being violated by that requirement?

 

Definitely yes but I'm old schooled and I prefer something that is more versatile like an ONTOS.

 

Nope but the I can't feature more than a handful of people being able to actually afford to buy one of those in the first place.

 

Fair enough. Just interested in if you found any weapon of war to be off limits. What is your opinion of private ownership of anti-personnel mines?

 

Not can I. So you agree there are certain weapons that should indeed require license, and therefore the potential of denial, for ownership? Do I understand your position correctly?

 

Thanks for the input. It is OK for some on the other side to perceive AR-15’s as scary looking, with that said, laws should not be passed banning a weapon for simply looking scary. One could buy an old school base model Mini-14 Ranch Rifle which does not look like the oft maligned AR-15 yet is every bit as deadly. I do agree however that many negatively judge firearms based upon their scary looks and use in many mass shootings while minimizing the positives of private ownership.

 

Don’t hold your breath just as I would advise the left not to hold their breath while waiting for the right to apologize. It is illogical by my measure of logic to wait for the other side to do the right thing before we do. It is a frustrating aspect of human nature that when those who we dislike accuse us of wrongdoing, we tend to rebut by saying “what about the other side” as opposed to saying “guilty as charged, sorry about that?” Each side needs to lead by example rather than waiting for the other side to do the right thing.

 

To the best of my knowledge, an American civilian can't legally own a nuclear weapon.
But I could be wrong.
I remember these fun nuclear toys when growing up when America was great.



Cyanide, Uranium, and Ammonium Nitrate: When Kids Really Had Fun With Science

But any law abiding U.S. citizen can legally own a machine gun, a Javelin anti tank weapon or a tank with a real gun that pops or even a jet fighter.

All one has to do is pay the ATF tax on the weapon.

These Vehicles Are Tons of Fun, and Good for Thwarting Road Rage
Private Tank Owners Roll Out Heavy Weaponry; A Spin in Parking Lot


Drive a tank in Texas...blow stuff up because it's really fun to do.

 

It's not likely the Democrats get anything "wrong" about Republicans, Democrats lie.

For example, Democrats know that Republicans are against illegal immigration, yet the Democrats tell each other that Republicans are against immigration, period.

No mas pantalones.

 

It seems to me that Obama was pretty civil
And, for that matter,
Clinton (allowing for his wandering penis) and carter too were pretty civil people

 

I draw the line at howitzers.

Howitzers: OK
Missile Launchers: Not OK

 

Self propelled weapons, like the one's shown, require a drivers license, and they need to be street legal.

 

What feature(s) cross the line for you? Why are howitzers ok but missile launchers are not?

 

Not if I drive it on my 50 acres of woodlands.

 

So efforts to stop legal migration shouldn’t be seen as anti-immigration?

 

Ballistic vs. self propelled.

 

That's OK then.

 

So primitive.
Even third world low information people from shithole countries can easily make one.

 

So, against?

 

Who is trying to stop legal migration?

Are you saying there should be no criteria for immigration?