When the "party of science" talked about muh wage gap I knew the goose was cooked. That shit is totally phony but they toss it around because it gets them votes. The media talks about it because it riles up the base. It is no different from the "war on Christmas" or whatever O'Reilly talked up all the time. It's exactly the same. But if you are predisposed to side with the blue team you'll accept the legitimacy of the premise naturally.
"Sensible regulation" is a political phrase man. That's the point. None of the regulations that Dems toss around would have stopped any of these mass shootings, that is a fact. It wouldn't keep any "guns off the street" as most of those guns are obtained through means that are already illegal today. So what is sensible? Keeping people on the "terrorist watch list" from buying guns is a total violation of 2nd amendment rights as that watch list is compiled without due process. So if there is "sensible regulation" that doesn't already exist I haven't heard of it, outside of the "gun show loophole" but that is hardly a driver in illegal gun-related crime.
The fact is that, unlike many of the rights the left talks about today (right to affordable housing, health care, etc.), gun ownership is literally a Constitutional right and that has to be respected. If they don't like it they should just man up and say they want an amendment to get rid of it.
Last edited by Diff-chan; 15 Nov 2017 at 07:30 AM.
See, that's the thing. I'm hardly a "gun nut." I own a few weapons back in the States, but that's more a legacy of my father than anything emotional.
The recent mass shooting in Texas could have been prevented under the current laws had the federal government followed through. It's awfully hard to believe in government as the solution to society's ills when government continues to fail so spectacularly.
Originally Posted by C.S. Lewis
I live in a city that violates my constitutional right, so I don't own one either.
I read this article about LA - another "may issue" city - about how the sheriff used the gun license procedure as a way to extract favors and gain relationships with the rich and famous in the city, while denying regular citizens for no reason. I don't see how giving the government this power helps anyone but the government.
Corruption would be a poor excuse not to pass regulations.
That first sentence, while true, is something I'm already tired of hearing. It isn't invalidated by that or anything but it's really amazing to watch the talking points on any side of an issue get regurgitated.
With regard to the second sentence: No! We (sadly) need them on board! It would be a lot better if they were smarter and less susceptible to being manipulated but we still need them.
I'm using Andrew's post as the reply. It may seem a little tinfoil but these are easily connected dots: Trump visibly supported Strange. If he orders Alabama GOP to disqualify Moore and run Sessions as a write-in, he gets to pick a new AG. I know he seems dumb but this is, at least, B-level game. Even if there isn't a subplot, he didn't support Moore and can take action against the guy.
Exactly! Jesus, it was near intolerable to read conservative sites bitch and moan about [insert something Black President did]. And while I had my issues with some things that occurred while he was in office, it would be untruthful to say that he didn't check a lot of boxes for me, so who knows how much of that annoyance was just my own bias. Yet, it feels like the same level of intolerable to read liberal sites bitch and moan about [insert something Executive Cheeto did] even though there's a good chance I'm in agreement with whatever the criticism is that they are leveling.
I really hate when the gun stuff comes up; especially if my wife has to get involved since it's the only thing we've really yelled at one another about - I can't fault her for it, either, as I have not lost someone to gun violence. I get the emotional response to mass shootings even when the victims aren't children. But it's tough, since I know that whenever the reaction by any group is to ban something that there's a bigger root cause that won't be addressed (guns, abortions, Muslim immigration, you name it) ... yet gun rights people have the absolute worst arguments and present them in such asinine ways.
This isn't guaranteed but it seems like Texas could have been prevented by maybe a smidge more diligent office workers or whoever handles the reporting that would have prevented the kid from getting firearms.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/856797001/
^ This, too.
How many governments around the world use the hypocrisy of regulation to subjugate their constituents?
The fact that it’s not nearly as widespread in the west is a testament to the system if nothing else. (And there’s still a lot of buffoonery going on.)
Shenanigans?
maxresdefault.jpg
To be honest, I think there's almost zero chance of the party actually allowing this to happen, barring a truly unprecedented scandal in which Trump refuses to step aside. But if it were allowed to happen, I could see him losing. The thirty-odd percent of people who approve of him are people who would approve of basically any Republican over any Democrat (case in point: Alabama, who will still choose a pedophile over a Democrat).
I agree with this. And I'm a guy who honestly would support an amendment to limit gun rights, but you can't just ignore the parts of the constitution you disagree with. And campaigning on something like that that is in the hands of the courts is a lot like all the Republican legislators campaigning on abortion despite having no ability to do anything meaningful about it.
Last edited by Frogacuda; 15 Nov 2017 at 09:39 AM.
Bookmarks