Laws based on what some people think other people need and more mandatory sentencing? Great!
yall sent out bat signal
yall sent out bat signal
35 homicides in Baltimore in 2017. Mostly handguns by repeat or juvenile offenders. Why not lock those people up and others who are arrested with unlicensed handguns for five to ten years minimum?
I would decriminalize most drug offenses too and set those people free with support once they're out.
I would decriminalize most drug offenses too and set those people free with support once they're out.
They should have some sort of law where if you have committed a crime in the past, you can't carry a handgun and if you do, you go to jail.
Or maybe some law where you can't conceal a weapon unless you have a permit.
Or maybe some law where you can't conceal a weapon unless you have a permit.
You know I have to admit I'm a hypocrite
I was about to type "I don't know that I want my right to bear arms taken away under this political reality", but ya know what, the right has felt that way themselves. And suddenly now, when I feel the government is more of a threat than its ever been for me personally, I'm suddenly more of an advocate for the right to bear arms. That's hypocritical of me.
The perception of a threat vs the factual reality of a threat are two different things, and thusly one side has more right to feel this way than the other in theory, but I just had to call myself out for the sake of discussion.
I was about to type "I don't know that I want my right to bear arms taken away under this political reality", but ya know what, the right has felt that way themselves. And suddenly now, when I feel the government is more of a threat than its ever been for me personally, I'm suddenly more of an advocate for the right to bear arms. That's hypocritical of me.
The perception of a threat vs the factual reality of a threat are two different things, and thusly one side has more right to feel this way than the other in theory, but I just had to call myself out for the sake of discussion.
By diehard Go To PostLaws based on what some people think other people need and more mandatory sentencing? Great!
yall sent out bat signal
And ... there's that paranoia I was talking about!
By Ciaran Go To PostSeriously can someone explain to me the removal of background checks?!? It makes zero senseThey didn't remove background checks, just a qualifier on passing them. I believe it was if you got social security for mental disabilities then you wouldn't pass. The argument was there was a lack of specifics on which mental disabilities should disqualify someone. I don't know a ton about it either though..
By Fenderputty Go To PostAnd … there's that paranoia I was talking about!How is responding to a specific idea "paranoia"?
By diehard Go To PostHow is responding to a specific idea "paranoia"?
How is "Yall lit the bat signal" not a shining example of what I was talking about on the last page?
By Fenderputty Go To PostHow is "Yall lit the bat signal" not a shining example of what I was talking about on the last page?That was a joke based on the fact that i often respond to gun law discussions.
By diehard Go To PostThat was a joke based on the fact that i often respond to gun law discussions.
Right. It's like the only thing you respond to as well. Even if it is hyperbole, it exemplifies the rights refusal to work ANY further regulation in.
By Fenderputty Go To PostRight. It's like the only thing you respond to as well. Even if it is hyperbole, it exemplifies the rights refusal to work ANY further regulation in.It's a subject i'm familiar with. Your response exemplifies the left's refusal to actually learn about the issues and desire to pass ineffective and misguided legislation.
By diehard Go To PostIt's a subject i'm familiar with. Your response exemplifies the left's refusal to actually learn about the issues and desire to pass ineffective and misguided legislation.
By all means suggest some! I await the rights insightful and super effective legislation!
By Fenderputty Go To PostBy all means suggest some! I await the rights insightful and super effective legislation!As long as the the second amendment currently has the meaning that the supreme court says it does.. i don't know if i could suggest anything.
The gunshow/private seller loophole maybe?
What part of the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd amendment stops us from regulating via testing, licensing, stricter punishment, clip limitations etc?
Keep in mind that I'm no liberal when it comes to this. I view outright bans as silly and reactionary. I'm not a fan of concealed carry permits but I am OK with open carry permits in principle (you know like when a black person can open carry and receive no different treatment from a white person). I actually want an AR10 and a new over under shotty myself.
Keep in mind that I'm no liberal when it comes to this. I view outright bans as silly and reactionary. I'm not a fan of concealed carry permits but I am OK with open carry permits in principle (you know like when a black person can open carry and receive no different treatment from a white person). I actually want an AR10 and a new over under shotty myself.
By Fenderputty Go To PostWhat part of the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd amendment stops us from regulating via testing, licensing, stricter punishment, clip limitations etc?To regulation via testing and licensing: The sixth circuit just struck down a ruling that said a man that was involuntarily committed could not own a firearm. They are so far away from allowing some sort of requirement on mental heath checks to validate a constitutional right it's not even funny.
Keep in mind that I'm no liberal when it comes to this. I view outright bans as silly and reactionary. I'm not a fan of concealed carry permits but I am OK with open carry permits in principle (you know like when a black person can open carry and receive no different treatment from a white person). I actually want an AR10 and a new over under shotty myself.
To stricter punishment and clip limitations: these fall under the category of ineffective legislation. High capacity magazine limitations were a part of the completely ineffective 1994 assault weapons ban. In a 2004 a DOJ report confirmed it's ineffectiveness. Harsher punishment for crimes has a long standing reputation of not being effective in dissuading said crime.. see: Illicit substances punishments.
By diehard Go To PostTo regulation via testing and licensing: The sixth circuit just struck down a ruling that said a man that was involuntarily committed could not own a firearm. They are so far away from allowing some sort of requirement on mental heath checks to validate a constitutional right it's not even funny.But the courts did uphold that people with medical marijuana licenses are deemed too unstable to own a firearm.
By reilo Go To PostBut the courts did uphold that people with medical marijuana licenses are deemed too unstable to own a firearm.True, and its weird. They could definitely go back on their decision to allow people who have proven mental problems, but IMO that is still far away from being required to prove you don't have a mental problem.
More Republicans finding their stones about this wall shit.
Now if we could just get DeVos shot down we could be in for a real Trump melt down.
Now if we could just get DeVos shot down we could be in for a real Trump melt down.
By Dark PhaZe Go To Postnever understood magazine size bansmakes some people feel good lol
legit question, where does trump plan on going to for revenue with massive tax cuts and all these expenses he's talking about (wall, ++ military spending).
Sure sure, cut the absolute fuck out of stuff like the EPA, but I don't understand how he plans on appealing to fiscal conservatives at all
Sure sure, cut the absolute fuck out of stuff like the EPA, but I don't understand how he plans on appealing to fiscal conservatives at all
By Dark PhaZe Go To Postlegit question, where does trump plan on going to for revenue with massive tax cuts and all these expenses he's talking about (wall, ++ military spending).
Sure sure, cut the absolute fuck out of stuff like the EPA, but I don't understand how he plans on appealing to fiscal conservatives at all
edit:
apparently that can wait until later lol
President Trump will look to prioritize military spending over balancing the federal budget, he told Fox News host Sean Hannity in an interview aired Thursday.
“So a balanced budget is fine,” Trump said. “But sometimes you have to fuel the well in order to really get the economy going. And we have to take care of our military. Our military is more important to me than a balanced budget. Because we'll get there with a balanced budget.”
“I want a balanced budget eventually,” he added. “But I want to have a strong military. To me that's much more important than anything.”
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/316432-trump-military-more-important-than-balanced-budget
By LFMartins86 Go To PostFixed that for you.There has been only one Catholic president right?
By blackace Go To PostThere has been only one Catholic president right?Yeah.
By DY_nasty Go To Postmakes some people feel good lol
Limit clip sizes and require all semi automatic weapons require a magazine bullet button. It at least seems like ti would limit the amount of rounds one could pop off efficiently.
I'm curious about the 2004 DOJ report. I thought the original ban just expired and am having a difficult time finding info on the high capacity magazines specifically.
Either way, if the right doesn't want outright weapon bans nor do they want to propose any actual regulation. The NRA just wants easier access as the answer.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostMore Republicans finding their stones about this wall shit.
Now if we could just get DeVos shot down we could be in for a real Trump melt down.
Texas Republicans were always going to be wishy washy on the wall. We'll see how they vote though.
By Fenderputty Go To PostLimit clip sizes and require all semi automatic weapons require a magazine bullet button. It at least seems like ti would limit the amount of rounds one could pop off efficiently.the clip and 'assault weapon' stuff was an utterly pointless piece of work imo
I'm curious about the 2004 DOJ report. I thought the original ban just expired and am having a difficult time finding info on the high capacity magazines specifically.
Either way, if the right doesn't want outright weapon bans nor do they want to propose any actual regulation. The NRA just wants easier access as the answer.
the nra is its own monster but it really goes to show how poorly the entire issue is debated i think
By DY_nasty Go To Postthe clip and 'assault weapon' stuff was an utterly pointless piece of work imo
the nra is its own monster but it really goes to show how poorly the entire issue is debated i think
I totally agree with the assault weapon stuff. Like I said I'm not for reactionary bans on weapons. People proposing these laws don't realize there's only minor differences between an AR15 and a Semi auto .223. The only reason "assault weapons" are targeted are due to the extreme nature of a mass shooting too. The actual amount gun violence with a handgun is many many times more than a semi auto rifle.
We do have an issue with gun violence in this nation though. The right mostly ignores this or pretends more guns are the solution. So we either propose some sort of regulation that limits the amount of future sales and tries to hamper how efficient a weapon is at killing a lot of people at once or ... we just let the status quo fly.
Why would the poor need internet. Shits a luxury
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/03/the-fcc-is-stopping-9-companies-from-providing-subsidized-broadband-to-the-poor/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.be69e21b49d9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/03/the-fcc-is-stopping-9-companies-from-providing-subsidized-broadband-to-the-poor/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.be69e21b49d9
The program, known as LIFELINE…
Roughly 900 service providers participate in the Lifeline program.
There are 900 providers and somehow 892 of them are run by Comcunts.
By DY_nasty Go To Postmakes some people feel good lolYea...
By Fenderputty Go To PostI totally agree with the assault weapon stuff. Like I said I'm not for reactionary bans on weapons. People proposing these laws don't realize there's only minor differences between an AR15 and a Semi auto .223. The only reason "assault weapons" are targeted are due to the extreme nature of a mass shooting too. The actual amount gun violence with a handgun is many many times more than a semi auto rifle.It's pretty absurd. If gun laws aren't at least a dog whistle they won't be passed.
We do have an issue with gun violence in this nation though. The right mostly ignores this or pretends more guns are the solution. So we either propose some sort of regulation that limits the amount of future sales and tries to hamper how efficient a weapon is at killing a lot of people at once or … we just let the status quo fly.
By reilo Go To PostWait, Trump is already on vacation? The fuckYou really can't say he hasn't been putting in work though. Like, it's been around the clock coverage for these first two weeks.
Everytime I hear Paul Ryan talk about the Republican party as the party of Lincoln, my urge to see him and his family die painful deaths grows stronger. I can't think of a human being I have less respect for. I hate him so much.
I've never been so addicted to poli podcasts.
Listening to other people be calmly outraged and flabbergasted by the volume and rate of Trump administration gaffes and mistakes relieves any impulse to talk or worry about it.
Listening to other people be calmly outraged and flabbergasted by the volume and rate of Trump administration gaffes and mistakes relieves any impulse to talk or worry about it.
By GQman2121 Go To PostEverytime I hear Paul Ryan talk about the Republican party as the party of Lincoln, my urge to see him and his family die painful deaths grows stronger. I can't think of a human being I have less respect for. I hate him so much.Easy. McConnell
By cashman Go To PostEasy. McConnell
Ryan's hate boner for the poor is twice as hard.
Trumps response to the Washington AG shutting his muslim ban down is glorious. Let the battle begin
Holy shit @ that gif.
Not even surprised.
By blackace Go To Posthttps://www.good.is/articles/pence-black-history
Not even surprised.
I'm reading Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, and thus quote by the fictious Dallas Cowboys owner Norm Oglesbgy discussing Saddam Hussein might as well be about Trump:
Who built palaces for his personal pleasure while schools decayed and his country’s health care system collapsed. Who maintained one of the world’s most expensive armies while he allowed his nation’s infrastructure to crumble. Who channeled resources to his cronies and political allies, allowing them to siphon off much of the country’s wealth for their own personal gain.
That describes many leaders today and throughout history.
Trump is not particularly exceptional or unique. But he's certainly unique among leaders our country has elected.
Trump is not particularly exceptional or unique. But he's certainly unique among leaders our country has elected.
That interview with some female Trump voters in Arizona was predictable but pretty sad.
The Trump base would have said similarly unhinged shit about Jeb or Cruz, I guess.
The Trump base would have said similarly unhinged shit about Jeb or Cruz, I guess.
Oh Trump IS unique.
Imagine a president stupid enough to let his personal thoughts be displayed on Twitter every single day.
His handlers probably need an hourly dose of valium to stop from having nervous breakdowns at this point.
Imagine a president stupid enough to let his personal thoughts be displayed on Twitter every single day.
His handlers probably need an hourly dose of valium to stop from having nervous breakdowns at this point.
By S@l Go To PostThat interview with some female Trump voters in Arizona was predictable but pretty sad.Where can I read it, S@l?
The Trump base would have said similarly unhinged shit about Jeb or Cruz, I guess.