In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 06 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote: I am glad he is attempting to close the bullshit “hobbyist” loop hole for gun sales. Hobbyist don’t hand out business cards and travel the country making guns sales. And the TFA has been understaffed and funded for over a decade.
I expect the GOP to continue the side show of “take away your guns,” while the majority of the country just wants the current laws to be fully enforced.
That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has.
In most cases, a background check is required to purchase a gun. Sometimes, people are able to purchase a gun without a background check. Obama is going to make it so background checks are always required when purchasing a gun. Can you explain why the situations Obama is addressing should not require background checks?
The Second Amendment is pretty clear on shall not be infringed. We don't put riders on the first Amendment do we? You have to go through checks to exercise freedom of speech lately? Well..maybe, if Trump is elected, or we get folks like Barbara Boxer in higher offices all throughout the country. The second point is that none of the "mass murders" this year (all 4), would have been affected by stronger background checks. This doesn't matter though. The agenda is disarmament and total reliance on the Feds. Why don't you guys just be honest?
On January 06 2016 06:30 Rassy wrote: Obama going after the nra and for gun control in election year is pretty bad for the democratic party I think. If he manages to get it through then the republican party has a decent shot,it is a very polarizing subject.
Trump or cruz,i don't see any other have a change anymore. Cruz could get a lot of latino votes or no? Bother parties trying to claim their own minority. The democrats going for the afro americans and the republicans going for the latino americans.
Cruz shouldn't really have a better shot at latino votes than Trump. In some ways he's even harsher than trump on them iirc.
Also if NateSilver and fivethirtyeight.com are correct the latino votes are pretty irrelevant for at least this time around because according to them a majority do happen to live in places that aren't going to swap no matter what (or the other way around with being fewer than the "average" would make you think). That might change in the future but for now getting Latino votes seems like a strategy aimed at the future.
On January 06 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote: I am glad he is attempting to close the bullshit “hobbyist” loop hole for gun sales. Hobbyist don’t hand out business cards and travel the country making guns sales. And the TFA has been understaffed and funded for over a decade.
I expect the GOP to continue the side show of “take away your guns,” while the majority of the country just wants the current laws to be fully enforced.
That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has.
m8, they dont arm everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia, they do it because it lets the capital grow. no need to go full tinfoil-mode
On January 06 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote: I am glad he is attempting to close the bullshit “hobbyist” loop hole for gun sales. Hobbyist don’t hand out business cards and travel the country making guns sales. And the TFA has been understaffed and funded for over a decade.
I expect the GOP to continue the side show of “take away your guns,” while the majority of the country just wants the current laws to be fully enforced.
That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has.
In most cases, a background check is required to purchase a gun. Sometimes, people are able to purchase a gun without a background check. Obama is going to make it so background checks are always required when purchasing a gun. Can you explain why the situations Obama is addressing should not require background checks?
The Second Amendment is pretty clear on shall not be infringed. We don't put riders on the first Amendment do we? You have to go through checks to exercise freedom of speech lately? Well..maybe, if Trump is elected, or we get folks like Barbara Boxer in higher offices all throughout the country. The second point is that none of the "mass murders" this year (all 4), would have been affected by stronger background checks. This doesn't matter though. The agenda is disarmament and total reliance on the Feds. Why don't you guys just be honest?
4? A mass shooting if often quantified as an event where 4 or more people are shot (injured or dead). There were more such events in 2015 then there were days in the year.
On January 06 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote: I am glad he is attempting to close the bullshit “hobbyist” loop hole for gun sales. Hobbyist don’t hand out business cards and travel the country making guns sales. And the TFA has been understaffed and funded for over a decade.
I expect the GOP to continue the side show of “take away your guns,” while the majority of the country just wants the current laws to be fully enforced.
That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has.
In most cases, a background check is required to purchase a gun. Sometimes, people are able to purchase a gun without a background check. Obama is going to make it so background checks are always required when purchasing a gun. Can you explain why the situations Obama is addressing should not require background checks?
The Second Amendment is pretty clear on shall not be infringed. We don't put riders on the first Amendment do we? You have to go through checks to exercise freedom of speech lately? Well..maybe, if Trump is elected, or we get folks like Barbara Boxer in higher offices all throughout the country. The second point is that none of the "mass murders" this year (all 4), would have been affected by stronger background checks. This doesn't matter though. The agenda is disarmament and total reliance on the Feds. Why don't you guys just be honest?
4? A mass shooting if often quantified as an event where 4 or more people are shot (injured or dead). There were more such events in 2015 then there were days in the year.
But you know. non-issue. obviously.
You're wrong and even Mother Jones agrees (as used by the definition used by the FBI). Nice try though.
On January 06 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote: I am glad he is attempting to close the bullshit “hobbyist” loop hole for gun sales. Hobbyist don’t hand out business cards and travel the country making guns sales. And the TFA has been understaffed and funded for over a decade.
I expect the GOP to continue the side show of “take away your guns,” while the majority of the country just wants the current laws to be fully enforced.
That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has.
In most cases, a background check is required to purchase a gun. Sometimes, people are able to purchase a gun without a background check. Obama is going to make it so background checks are always required when purchasing a gun. Can you explain why the situations Obama is addressing should not require background checks?
The Second Amendment is pretty clear on shall not be infringed. We don't put riders on the first Amendment do we? You have to go through checks to exercise freedom of speech lately? Well..maybe, if Trump is elected, or we get folks like Barbara Boxer in higher offices all throughout the country. The second point is that none of the "mass murders" this year (all 4), would have been affected by stronger background checks. This doesn't matter though. The agenda is disarmament and total reliance on the Feds. Why don't you guys just be honest?
4? A mass shooting if often quantified as an event where 4 or more people are shot (injured or dead). There were more such events in 2015 then there were days in the year.
But you know. non-issue. obviously.
guys on the right usually will refer to some FBI stat (don't make me search it...) where they define it differently as 4 or more killed, not injured. That's obviously bad in all kinds of ways since it completely leaves out the group of "accidents" gun control tries to prevent the most. But that's where the difference in numbers comes from.
On January 06 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote: I am glad he is attempting to close the bullshit “hobbyist” loop hole for gun sales. Hobbyist don’t hand out business cards and travel the country making guns sales. And the TFA has been understaffed and funded for over a decade.
I expect the GOP to continue the side show of “take away your guns,” while the majority of the country just wants the current laws to be fully enforced.
That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has.
In most cases, a background check is required to purchase a gun. Sometimes, people are able to purchase a gun without a background check. Obama is going to make it so background checks are always required when purchasing a gun. Can you explain why the situations Obama is addressing should not require background checks?
The Second Amendment is pretty clear on shall not be infringed. We don't put riders on the first Amendment do we? You have to go through checks to exercise freedom of speech lately? Well..maybe, if Trump is elected, or we get folks like Barbara Boxer in higher offices all throughout the country. The second point is that none of the "mass murders" this year (all 4), would have been affected by stronger background checks. This doesn't matter though. The agenda is disarmament and total reliance on the Feds. Why don't you guys just be honest?
4? A mass shooting if often quantified as an event where 4 or more people are shot (injured or dead). There were more such events in 2015 then there were days in the year.
But you know. non-issue. obviously.
You're wrong and even Mother Jones agrees (as used by the definition used by the FBI). Nice try though.
I included the definition used, if you want to apply a different definition that is fine but just because someone doesn't die, doesn't stop them from having been shot.
On January 06 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote: I am glad he is attempting to close the bullshit “hobbyist” loop hole for gun sales. Hobbyist don’t hand out business cards and travel the country making guns sales. And the TFA has been understaffed and funded for over a decade.
I expect the GOP to continue the side show of “take away your guns,” while the majority of the country just wants the current laws to be fully enforced.
That same ATF which ran guns to Mexican Cartels? lmao. The Government wants us peons disarmed while they go arming everyone else around the world to fuel paranoia at home and foment monsters abroad for justifications for US interventions and the MIC. Government sycophants are the worst. I'm sure ya'll will be up in arms the next time a President not of your ideological stripe gets into office and starts abusing EO's like Obama has.
In most cases, a background check is required to purchase a gun. Sometimes, people are able to purchase a gun without a background check. Obama is going to make it so background checks are always required when purchasing a gun. Can you explain why the situations Obama is addressing should not require background checks?
The Second Amendment is pretty clear on shall not be infringed. We don't put riders on the first Amendment do we? You have to go through checks to exercise freedom of speech lately? Well..maybe, if Trump is elected, or we get folks like Barbara Boxer in higher offices all throughout the country. The second point is that none of the "mass murders" this year (all 4), would have been affected by stronger background checks. This doesn't matter though. The agenda is disarmament and total reliance on the Feds. Why don't you guys just be honest?
The Second Amendment does not grant people the right to buy a gun without having their background checked. Furthermore, it only grants access to a gun if you plan on becoming a minuteman, hence why Jefferson wanted us to review and update the Constitution every 19 years- to keep it relevant.
Also, Wegandi, 4 mass shootings in the first week is more than some countries have all year. Just like last year, we're going to average one mass shooting EVERY DAY.
Also that article straight up says there are huge problems with gun violence in this country. And the metric for mass shootings means that 80 people could be shot, but if 2 people die, it doesn't count. So really good EMTs reduce mass shootings.
I think mass shootings are kind of a distraction from the big 5 digits of kills we get from general handgun violence. We can't stop an otherwise law-abiding citizen whose first crime ever is pulling the trigger in a suicide-gun attack (Nidal Hassan). That would require precognition to detect. But we can detect regular criminals engaged in robbery and the drug trade and trip them up with background checks and firearms handling regulations. Gun control really can help by making cheap handguns (the real killers) harder to get.
On January 06 2016 07:55 Plansix wrote: Also that article straight up says there are huge problems with gun violence in this country. And the metric for mass shootings means that 80 people could be shot, but if 2 people die, it doesn't count. So really good EMTs reduce mass shootings.
Usually, mass shootings are listed as 4 or more casualties, which are classified as anyone injured or killed, including the shooter himself. For example, this Vox article with tons of data from last year uses such a definition, which is explicitly stated in the third points (over 1,042 mass shootings since Sandy Hook): http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics
On January 06 2016 07:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Also, Wegandi, 4 mass shootings in the first week is more than some countries have all year. Just like last year, we're going to average one mass shooting EVERY DAY.
That's fucked up.
We're also a huge country with a more complex society than other countries. It may be the price you just have to pay. Also, you say mass shooting but that's like 2 people dead or 4 casualties. Again, not that impressive for a huge country like the US.
On January 06 2016 07:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Also, Wegandi, 4 mass shootings in the first week is more than some countries have all year. Just like last year, we're going to average one mass shooting EVERY DAY.
That's fucked up.
We're also a huge country with a more complex society than other countries. It may be the price you just have to pay. Also, you say mass shooting but that's like 2 people dead or 4 casualties. Again, not that impressive for a huge country like the US.
That's every day, on top of tens of thousands of homicides and suicides done with guns. Other countries don't have that issue. And when you say that this simply must be the price we need to pay because the United States is huge compared to other countries... well Toby Ziegler respectfully disagrees with your conclusion:
On January 06 2016 07:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Also, Wegandi, 4 mass shootings in the first week is more than some countries have all year. Just like last year, we're going to average one mass shooting EVERY DAY.
That's fucked up.
We're also a huge country with a more complex society than other countries. It may be the price you just have to pay. Also, you say mass shooting but that's like 2 people dead or 4 casualties. Again, not that impressive for a huge country like the US.
as the onion says "the only nation where this regularly happens"
On January 06 2016 07:33 Wegandi wrote:We don't put riders on the first Amendment do we?
Of course we do. Government speech? Limited. Professional speech? Limited. Conduct. Not protected. Content-neutral restrictions? Subject to intermediate scrutiny.
On January 06 2016 07:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Also, Wegandi, 4 mass shootings in the first week is more than some countries have all year. Just like last year, we're going to average one mass shooting EVERY DAY.
That's fucked up.
We're also a huge country with a more complex society than other countries. It may be the price you just have to pay. Also, you say mass shooting but that's like 2 people dead or 4 casualties. Again, not that impressive for a huge country like the US.
as the onion says "the only nation where this regularly happens"
And they basically just change the Location of the news article and repost it every month or so lol x.x
On January 06 2016 07:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Also, Wegandi, 4 mass shootings in the first week is more than some countries have all year. Just like last year, we're going to average one mass shooting EVERY DAY.
That's fucked up.
We're also a huge country with a more complex society than other countries. It may be the price you just have to pay. Also, you say mass shooting but that's like 2 people dead or 4 casualties. Again, not that impressive for a huge country like the US.
Man now I have to be lame and quote "one death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic".
On January 06 2016 01:18 Mohdoo wrote: If Rubio doesn't win one of the first few states, I think it's officially Cruz vs Trump. It's also interesting to see the establishment can't wrap it's head around how much less effective TV ads are nowadays.
The problem is bigger than that. Trump's voting bloc isn't going to abandon him for establishment candidates. Even if an ad campaign successfully hurts Trump it won't be Rubio or Jeb getting a windfall, it'll be Cruz.
I think the establishment's goal is to drive Trump out of the race or marginalize him by crushing his "I'm a winner" narrative immediately after Super Tuesday. Trump won't waste his money if he's clearly getting battered. Then they can bring all cannons to bear on Cruz and consolidate behind whichever establishment candidate remains. It's not like any substantial amount of states will have voted at that point and a Rubio/Bush/Christie win is not inconceivable at that point, a la McCain's win in 2008.
Christie has zero chance of winning, fwiw.
Last I heard Christie is something like 33% favorable / 66% unfavorable in NEW JERSEY. The guy is a sitting governor and he doesn't bother staying in state because his state hates him. Guy needs to just resign and retire.
As a New Jerseyan, I can confirm this lol.
The one thing Christie has done right in NJ, to his credit, is Hurricane Sandy. He warned the shit out of everyone beforehand, worked tirelessly to help afterwards, and even gave Obama props because Obama was quick to act too. But Christie has pissed off every public servant in the state with him screwing over our wages and tenures and pensions, hasn't made NJ any better of a state, has completely forgotten about governing us as he campaigns, and frequently just fires off his big mouth for no good reason.
Didn't he also more or less drop the ball on finishing the Sandy clean up though, or am I thinking of something/one else?
EPT
