Login
Sign Up


You are using the mobile version of the forum, some features have been disabled to have it responsive.
Limelight CityRP - v4b1Limelight CityRP - EU Build
Ares Defence Services DiscordAres Defence Services
Limelight Discord
Limelight CityRP - v4b1Limelight CityRP - EU BuildAres Defence Services DiscordAres Defence ServicesLimelight Discord

receiptDevelopment Blog:

Development Contributor Workflow

receiptHR Blog:

What *are* they doing over there?

receiptTeacher Blog:

Insight into the Teacher Team

receiptDevelopment Blog:

Infrastructure Upgrade 11/2019

receiptDevelopment Blog:

how suggestions???

receiptDevelopment Blog:

Planning for the future.


This forum uses cookies
This forum makes use of cookies to store your login information if you are registered, and your last visit if you are not. Cookies are small text documents stored on your computer; the cookies set by this forum can only be used on this website and pose no security risk. Cookies on this forum also track the specific topics you have read and when you last read them. Please confirm whether you accept or reject these cookies being set.

A cookie will be stored in your browser regardless of choice to prevent you being asked this question again. You will be able to change your cookie settings at any time using the link in the footer.

The Rockfordian Politics - Longcross releases statement regarding party differences
Judge Rage radio_button_checked
Deny, Defend, Depose
Membership
Posts: 1,068
Threads: 82
Likes Given: 784
Likes Recieved: 1400 in 550 posts
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 12
#1
Jul 9, 2019, 03:02 PM
(This post was last modified: Jul 9, 2019, 03:02 PM by Judge Rage. Edited 1 time in total.)
The following 1 user Likes Judge Rage's post:
  • Ben
Judge Rage radio_button_checked
Deny, Defend, Depose
Membership
Posts: 1,068
Threads: 82
Likes Given: 784
Likes Recieved: 1400 in 550 posts
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 12
#2
Jul 9, 2019, 03:04 PM
[Image: OIyzrpk.png]

The Rockfordian Politics is brought to you by the EvoCity News Corporation, a subsidiary of the Evo Broadcasting Corporation.

[Image: 26uf12lLUgLfeQyXe.gif]
(This post was last modified: Jul 9, 2019, 03:04 PM by Judge Rage. Edited 1 time in total.)
Lord Octagon radio_button_checked
"Octagon letting out his inner priest" ~ Monty
Membership
Posts: 2,116
Threads: 164
Likes Given: 1158
Likes Recieved: 2050 in 818 posts
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 29
#3
Jul 10, 2019, 12:15 PM
[Image: NZZtT7v.png]
The following 1 user Likes Lord Octagon's post:
  • Ben
Judge Rage radio_button_checked
Deny, Defend, Depose
Membership
Posts: 1,068
Threads: 82
Likes Given: 784
Likes Recieved: 1400 in 550 posts
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 12
#4
Jul 10, 2019, 12:58 PM
(Jul 10, 2019, 12:15 PM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [Image: NZZtT7v.png]

[Image: 3bbb21b08da30809d7822f6c3ca9f65e.png]
[Image: e2383c4b9c0b468c036343bcb016445a.gif]

[Image: dae6afafc7acf1d8463545c4bd530ec1.png]
The following 2 users Like Judge Rage's post:
  • Ben, bimkx
Lord Octagon radio_button_checked
"Octagon letting out his inner priest" ~ Monty
Membership
Posts: 2,116
Threads: 164
Likes Given: 1158
Likes Recieved: 2050 in 818 posts
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 29
#5
Jul 10, 2019, 01:14 PM
[Image: 2Xl94yx.png]
The following 1 user Likes Lord Octagon's post:
  • Ben
Jeff Ford radio_button_checked
crazy but funny notwithstanding
Membership
Posts: 647
Threads: 44
Likes Given: 387
Likes Recieved: 369 in 255 posts
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 4
#6
Jul 10, 2019, 06:41 PM
[Image: 8QzTPy0.png]
"You know, if you don't want to run again, I respect that. But if you don't run because you think it's gonna be too hard or you think you're gonna lose, well, God, Jed, I don't even want to know you." - The West Wing

"I'm fully prepared to live with the consequences of my actions. What I couldn't live with were the consequences of my inactions." - Madam Secretary

Characters

Jeff W. Ford | President of the Federal Republic of Rockford.
Adam Walker | General-Secretary of the Communist Party of Rockford.
Gen. John Wentworth | General of the Army, the Armed Forces of Rockford.
(This post was last modified: Jul 10, 2019, 07:27 PM by Jeff Ford. Edited 3 times in total.)
Lord Octagon radio_button_checked
"Octagon letting out his inner priest" ~ Monty
Membership
Posts: 2,116
Threads: 164
Likes Given: 1158
Likes Recieved: 2050 in 818 posts
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 29
#7
Jul 10, 2019, 06:55 PM
[Image: d7qbAzU.png]


Idaho Conservative Platform

Quote:ARTICLE XVI. LAW AND ORDER WITH JUSTICE 

Section 1. Gun Rights 

A. We support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article one section eleven of the Idaho State Constitution. 
B. We commend the efforts of organizations to preserve and foster that right, including Right-to-Carry laws. 
C. We believe the federal government should not regulate intrastate ammunition and firearms sales.
D. We believe in the protection of the American firearms industry against harassing lawsuits that blame them for the acts of criminals. 
E. We call for more enforcement of current laws against violent criminals, not more “gun control” aimed at law-abiding citizens. 
F. We strongly oppose the United States entering into any international agreements or treaties which would undermine, limit or interfere with the individual right to own and bear arms and ammunition. 
G. We find that the Congress violated the 2nd amendment’s protections in the 1986 Firearms’ Owners Protection H. Act when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) interpreted the Hughes Amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986. 
Hungames radio_button_checked
Member
Membership
Posts: 747
Threads: 69
Likes Given: 493
Likes Recieved: 953 in 427 posts
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 4
#8
Jul 11, 2019, 12:08 AM
(Jul 10, 2019, 06:41 PM)Jeff Ford Wrote: [Image: 8QzTPy0.png]

And in what conceivable way do you intend to place greater regulations on criminals that do not impact the law-abiding civilian populace? The very nature of gun-control regulation is that it targets EVERYONE, regardless of criminal status. You can't institute stronger background checks without imposing the same rules on everybody. The purpose of a background check is to determine criminal status and other extenuating factors that prevent buying a firearm. How would a system be able to only target criminals, without conducting a background check to the background check? 

And why are you giving out guns left, right, and 'centre'? You claim to want to strengthen regulation in your "On the Issues" statement (" I personally believe that the vetting system should be strengthened, so that weapons do not get in the hands of those who wish to do harm."). Wouldn't giving out guns "left, right, and centre" be a violation of the platform you run on?

And furthermore, how are you to determine which people want to "do harm to your friends, family, etc."? Wouldn't that require an extensive background check that includes mental health status, questioning those around the applicant, etc.? Soon enough it's going to be easier to get a high-security clearance than it is to get a gun. And by the way, expanding background checks means more regulation

Illogical bullshit like this makes me wanna vote for the fascists.

Regards,
A Happy Conservative

This message is not endorsed or created by the Conservative Party.
[Image: dZVD5wF.png]
rockin the new sig gimme rep
The following 2 users Like Hungames's post:
  • D3ST, Lord Octagon
Judge Rage radio_button_checked
Deny, Defend, Depose
Membership
Posts: 1,068
Threads: 82
Likes Given: 784
Likes Recieved: 1400 in 550 posts
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 12
#9
Jul 11, 2019, 12:27 AM
(Jul 11, 2019, 12:08 AM)Hungames Wrote:
(Jul 10, 2019, 06:41 PM)Jeff Ford Wrote: [Image: 8QzTPy0.png]

And in what conceivable way do you intend to place greater regulations on criminals that do not impact the law-abiding civilian populace? The very nature of gun-control regulation is that it targets EVERYONE, regardless of criminal status. You can't institute stronger background checks without imposing the same rules on everybody. The purpose of a background check is to determine criminal status and other extenuating factors that prevent buying a firearm. How would a system be able to only target criminals, without conducting a background check to the background check? 

And why are you giving out guns left, right, and 'centre'? You claim to want to strengthen regulation in your "On the Issues" statement (" I personally believe that the vetting system should be strengthened, so that weapons do not get in the hands of those who wish to do harm."). Wouldn't giving out guns "left, right, and centre" be a violation of the platform you run on?

And furthermore, how are you to determine which people want to "do harm to your friends, family, etc."? Wouldn't that require an extensive background check that includes mental health status, questioning those around the applicant, etc.? Soon enough it's going to be easier to get a high-security clearance than it is to get a gun. And by the way, expanding background checks means more regulation

Illogical bullshit like this makes me wanna vote for the fascists.

Regards,
A Happy Conservative

This message is not endorsed or created by the Conservative Party.

Let's be clear on one thing.

We are talking about concealed carry weapon permits here, nothing more, nothing less. 

We care about strengthening open carry laws, and ensuring that this vital right is protected for all to enjoy. 

Now, I understand the concerns about Liberal gun control policy, but at the end of the day what you should be worrying about is the gun control policy of the National Socialist Party of Idaho and Idaho Union Of Fascists who openly seek to disarm the populace and take your guns away "for the greater good". You might think that this is not a concern, but at last released polls the Nazis were polling second to the Liberals, and yesterday they were polling at first ahead of the Liberals.

The Nazis and Fascists want to take away your guns. They openly admit this in their statements and in last night's debate. Notwithstanding this, the Labour Party also wants to increase regulation on firearms, completely banning handguns and concealed carry, and allowing those open carrying rifles to only carry 200 rounds of ammunition, aggressively stating "WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE [for 200 rounds of ammunition]" in last night's debate.

Liberals stand to protect your Second Ammendment.

Vote Liberal.
[Image: e2383c4b9c0b468c036343bcb016445a.gif]

[Image: dae6afafc7acf1d8463545c4bd530ec1.png]




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)