And yet again...another shooting rampage in the USA


#442

Bump stocks seem to have come into play around 2010. Something Trumps team are already blaming on the Obama administration for not properly regulating.

I was pretty sure Trump was going to lay the blame on Obama and tell everyone he was going to fix it by banning these bump stocks, except wasn’t sure how the NRA would take it. Seems they have Trumps back as much as he has theirs.

TLDR: Obama’s fault, Trump and NRA being reasonable in bringing in regulation to fix the problem. (At least that’s what they are selling, you decide how many will buy that).


#443

I didn’t say I agreed with her sentiment, I just agreed with her statement.

My Social Security comment stands, though. I do not know why I would be fired. Probably due to the boss being a 45’er. Saying that, many GOP/45’ers most likely agree that SS should become history. As well as all social programs and shift those monies to the military industrial complex.

And to that, that is a good thing. That is how freedom of speech and expression work. I exercised mine, they exercised theirs.


#444

Sounds like the NRA is just trying not to look bad.

I honestly do not get America’s obsessions with guns and their seemingly sacred 2nd amendment. The thing is, they claim that their guns cannot be taken away by the 2nd amendment. But…why does it only apply to guns? Where in the amendment does it say “guns, and ONLY guns!”? It only refers to “arms”, and at the time that meant archery, swords and knives, canons, etc. So why only sticking up for guns?

I know plenty of gun nuts who support owning any military grade rifle gun whatever they can, yet when I say I want a thermonuclear device, they think I am crazy and things like that should be banned. Why? Hey, just because you ban something does not mean someone cannot get it…am I right?


#445

Thanks for the clarification. It sounded like you were agreeing with both. But not to worry, I doubt your boss reads these threads.


#446

Arm007


#447

Like I said, I’m not a fan of guns. That being said I don’t think the situation is improved by each side constantly name calling, or by biased media pushing an agenda and politicians with their weasel words and what seems to be an innate disposition to dishonesty.

I also think there is an increase in people who are surrounding themselves in an echo chamber, only frequenting sites and chat rooms or message boards that have people who share the same thoughts that they do.

It’s one of the reasons I like to post here, I like to hear other peoples opinions when they think I am wrong and for the most part it’s posted in a polite and well thought out manner.


#448

Many of my friends living in the south grew up with these things. Its like trying to get locals to stop burning paper money because it’s bad for environment. Sadly it wasn’t till I was older did I realize they most of they had zero original political thoughts and are just repeating what their parents believe.

But I do admit. There is something exhilarating about firing a AK 47 or 357 revolver into random things. But maybe not enough for me to say that it’s worth having crazy people also have access to them to do real damage.


#449

While all that is true, I think its worth noting we live in Democracies, people get to decide on major issues. At least in theory.

Here in Taiwan, how to deal with the China issue is the hot topic, Ma Ying Jeuo ran on doing business with China under the '92 consensus, he won and had a mandate from the people to go forward. Tsai Ing Wen ran on the platform of not recognizing the '92 consensus. In both cases, the other side needs to accept, that was the will of the people.

I think gun control in the US is no different, right now you have a Republican House, Senate and President, who ran on defending the 2nd amendment and the rights of gun owners. You want to push back,then it goes into your party platform, you run on those issues and if and when you win, then you too have a mandate from the people to push your reform.


#450

But the problem I mentioned is still that even if you have the federal government change the laws. Are each individual states going to follow? In fact one of the ways gun supporters interpret the 2nd amendment is that it’s so that each state can bear arms to prevent a federal government that becomes tyrannical. That surely will be what many states will fight back with. And give them the cause to rally on that idea if federal laws ban or make significant gun reforms. That’s the thing I really think prevents gun laws from taking real change. Taiwan doesn’t have the issue of states right.


#451

Love this guy.


#452

and… at which point I find myself out of my depth as topics such as USA is a Representative Government get brought up.


#453

Don’t worry. you probably know more than most US citizens.


#454

I’m a Black Flag fan, but lost respect for Rollins when he went from anarchist to socialist.


#455

Eh, we all grow up.


#456

The US has no real control on drugs and has no real control on guns even if they ban everything today

The baddies will get what they need


#457

No way, man!


#458

It’s truly a matter of interpretation…


#459

Tsai has never really denounced the “92 Consensus” since taking office. She hasn’t publicly endorsed it, and her previous stance is rather clear, but even she knows its not in the best interest if the Taiwanese people to go provoking Beijing. Her only public statement on it has been to “maintain the status quo” which could be read as an endorsement, but not good enough for China. They want her to “say their name!”

Gun rights were never in danger, it was an entirely made up issue. Congress and the WH have at times tried to restrict certain peoples from obtaining guns, and many guns have been the target of some legislation. Congress is constitutionally allowed to do this. If not, per my previous reply, we would all have nukes in our basements.

The old, tired, weak, and illogical argument has been “if you ban guns, people will still get them!” which can be applied to anything.

45 was not elected with a mandate. That would require winning both the electoral and popular votes. Now, 45 has made it clear he has won both, but he wants to divide and conquer to population by screaming voter fraud and fake news.


#460

I believe the correct term is “sideways.”


#461

He could have those things and still not have a mandate, by Rowlandian standards. (He would have to be a liberal, of course. Conservatives have the Mandate of Heaven. :innocent:)