American Politics

[shionoro]

There gun industry is larger in the US, so there are more incidents. If there are no guns anway, how would you be able to say the law works or doesnt work?

And why are there less guns? Because less people can buy them. Sooo, gunlaws are working.
If you hand every insane man, his mother, father, children and his dog a gun, then you will naturally get problems.

Preventing that is exactly what gunlaws are about. They allow moderate and secure gun ownership for people who went through a thorough training and a screening. that means if you have a criminal record, mental illness or other things which make it questionable whether you should have a gun, then you are out.
And when you possess it, you may not carry it arround loaded. You can have it in your safe, with the ammunition in another one, and basically only take it out to carry it to the spots where you are specifially allowed to use it.
You also have to give a good reason for wanting a gun, for example if you are a hunter or sports marksman. If you have no special reason, you may not own one.
You may not carry it loaded, and without a licence you may not carry it at all (you can even get in trouble if you, for example, just throw away an old gun of a deceased relative).

THAT is what a strict gunlaw is, and that is what prevents massshootings most of the time.

 

[M3J]

Of course he did, but I don't think he'd expect some vulgarity from Debbie, which is really messed up if they'd go as far as even going for personal attacks (like questioning his faith).

Of course they're crazy, but I doubt they know where Washington DC is located.
But on a serious note: I'm sure riots will happen, but I doubt they'll become problematic unless it turns into millions at D.C.

I think there's some issues going on in Philly with the whole DNC thing being there.

It's not a law, it's a constitutional right. And while we can of course debate the intention - it's clear the amendment exists in order to allow citizens to form militias, for example. However it still protects and will always protect the private ownership of firearms.

The types of weapons people should be allowed to own and operate is sort of a separate topic.

Either way, it's not a natural thing to have a gun as it'd be to have food or shelter or even air. While I have no problem with it protecting private ownership of firearms, I do have a problem with people hiding behind it to justify owning assault rifles or justify that everyone should have guns, violent or dangerous or not.

The democrats are such an embarrassment to our democratic system. Why would they make strategic and tactical comments like that in writing that can always find its way to third parties. I feel sad for Hillary Clinton as now people will doubt it was her own ability that enabled her success.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 24, 2016 ---

There gun industry is larger in the US, so there are more incidents. If there are no guns anway, how would you be able to say the law works or doesnt work?

Now you know how people and most non-Americans feel about republicans being an embarrassment.

But it was not her own ability that enabled her success, it was her husband's legacy as well as playing dirty. Then there's the fact that people think voting Hillary means a right step for feminism. Unlike Bernie, Hillary had plenty of help being "successful." Pretty sure she wouldn't be as popular as she is if Trump wasn't a shithead.

Guns should be more strictly regulated, and it's appalling people argue against this common sense.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I think there's some issues going on in Philly with the whole DNC thing being there.

Is it about Obama passing on his torch to Hillary?

 

[M3J]

No, it's related to the leaks. I forgot most of the information, though.

 

[xi0]

Either way, it's not a natural thing to have a gun as it'd be to have food or shelter or even air. While I have no problem with it protecting private ownership of firearms, I do have a problem with people hiding behind it to justify owning assault rifles or justify that everyone should have guns, violent or dangerous or not.

Maybe someone will insist on false equivalency there because it is the second amendment, making them think it's more important that shelter or food or something. However, restrictions on the right exist for a reason. We live in different times, but the ability for oneself to arm themselves in the case of tyrannical government isn't THAT crazy. That being said, way too many second amendment advocates insist on overly slippery slopes in regard to putting any restrictions on ownership at all...it's paranoia really. Personally, I'm leaning more towards the types of weapons being sold not being the main issue in preventing mass shootings, it's the ease at which people can acquire those weapons. Way too many states have no requirements of weapon registration or even thorough training.

However, most evidence suggests that the majority of crime involving firearms involve guns that aren't legally owned anyway...so this issue is a mess IMO

 

[shionoro]

I think it is illusionary to think that it is possible to completely restrict guns like in europe in the US in the midterm future.
There is a significant percentage of people whose guns are part of their personality, and that is a reality.

but i think what is possible is a nationwide debate about what is proper gunuse and what are decent reasons for owning a gun.

I think it would be a big step in the right direction if there'd be rigourus screening processes for gun ownership.

 

[GrySun]

It's official: Debbie Wasserman Schultz is resigning after the Convention.

Even if she were to resign immediately, the damage is already done.

Oh the damage isn't done yet. Clinton actually hired her for her campaign. I can't understand the logic behind that. So first the email leak proves that Sanders got screwed by the DNC and that it isn't a conspiracy theory anymore. Then miss Schultz resigns, then gets picked up by the person who she rigged the nomination for. Calling this awkward would be an understatement.

And Trump leading in recent polls now too. Biggest post-convention numbers increase since some decades ago. Hardly surprising however.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Oh the damage isn't done yet. Clinton actually hired her for her campaign. I can't understand the logic behind that. So first the email leak proves that Sanders got screwed by the DNC and that it isn't a conspiracy theory anymore. Then miss Schultz resigns, then gets picked up by the person who she rigged the nomination for. Calling this awkward would be an understatement.

And Trump leading in recent polls now too. Biggest post-convention numbers increase since some decades ago. Hardly surprising however.

I can't... the logic behind this is absurd. Now we know for sure that she doesn't want any Sanders Supporters now.
At this point, I don't blame the Sanders Supporters refusing to vote for her even after his endorsement. I'm getting a headache over this...

I am not surprised by one bit. Democrats had a perfect opportunity this year, but they blew it up like the Republicans did. I don't even know if this race should be considered "Who wants to lose in a godawfully embarrassing way" contest. Trump should definitely thank them for rolling the red carpet to the White House.

 

[shionoro]

Maybe....Clinton is planted by trump so that he can win? 0.o

 

[GrySun]

I don't know anymore. Sometimes it seems like Trump was planted by her. Other times it seems she was planted by Trump. It's a mess. They're probably both politically inept to some degree, but since Clinton is a lifelong politician she has no excuse. And there's even more emails to be leaked, so the convention for them will be a mess.

 

[shionoro]

Clinton's problems are actually not insanely big if she had just stood up once and said 'sorry i did a big mistake'.

Americans are usually pretty forgiving if you do that.
But Hillary is not that kind of girl. Maybe it is because she is a lawyer. The first thing you learn is to never admit you have been wrong.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I guess the day when Hillary says "sorry" is probably the day Donald Trump releases his Tax Returns.

But yes, this is definitely a new level of a "mess" we're experiencing.

 

[SharkBait]

Another incident that proves that if you need more gun control then you need to control other things again. More proof that increased control just doesn't work. People will do things regardless of an objects utility.

 

[shionoro]

Another incident that proves that if you need more gun control then you need to control other things again. More proof that increased control just doesn't work. People will do things regardless of an objects utility.

You keep coming with cases from countrys which have significantly lower murder rates or general massshootings than the US and somehow want to tell us that their system does not work....It makes no sense. Like, at all.

 

[xi0]

Another incident that proves that if you need more gun control then you need to control other things again. More proof that increased control just doesn't work. People will do things regardless of an objects utility.

Wtf does this have to do with guns?... You really think the average violent mentally ill individual wouldn't use a gun in place of a knife if they had easy access to it? This is what the entire gun debate is about.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 25, 2016 ---

And this entire DNC fiasco....what a fucking joke. I don't know who can stand there and say they're happy with the GOP or Democratic party. The leadership in these parties are conniving fat-cats who think they know what's best for the country. I hope both of them go down in flames and the sooner the better.

 

[M3J]

Maybe someone will insist on false equivalency there because it is the second amendment, making them think it's more important that shelter or food or something. However, restrictions on the right exist for a reason. We live in different times, but the ability for oneself to arm themselves in the case of tyrannical government isn't THAT crazy. That being said, way too many second amendment advocates insist on overly slippery slopes in regard to putting any restrictions on ownership at all...it's paranoia really. Personally, I'm leaning more towards the types of weapons being sold not being the main issue in preventing mass shootings, it's the ease at which people can acquire those weapons. Way too many states have no requirements of weapon registration or even thorough training.

However, most evidence suggests that the majority of crime involving firearms involve guns that aren't legally owned anyway...so this issue is a mess IMO

As silly as the Second Amendment is, why do we need anything bigger than handguns or multiple guns? What if the government just sends its military? Most of us don't stand a chance against military with better weapons.

Exactly! I think first and best step forward is to make it immensely harder for people to acquire guns. People with history of domestic violence or living in the same household as someone with mental illness should not be able to own guns. Make them take psychological tests or something, even.

I think that applies mainly with gangs as I assume more of them illegally own guns. But this would prevent mass shootings, if not decrease it, because the mass shooters legally bought guns.

Clinton's problems are actually not insanely big if she had just stood up once and said 'sorry i did a big mistake'.

Americans are usually pretty forgiving if you do that.
But Hillary is not that kind of girl. Maybe it is because she is a lawyer. The first thing you learn is to never admit you have been wrong.

Nah, it'd have been pretty big because she's part of DNC and benefited hugely from the DNC screwing Bernie over. Most people see her as untrustworthy and bad, as well as ugly, but many know Trump is way worse, so they side with Hillary. Something like this would make people reconsider, however, especially given 3rd party candidates are becoming a thing and they'd begin to think even Trump isn't that dirty. Hillary's reputation is good only among her supporters, otherwise most others don't trust her. A simple sorry wouldn't help much, if at all.

Another incident that proves that if you need more gun control then you need to control other things again. More proof that increased control just doesn't work. People will do things regardless of an objects utility.

That's a dumb comparison. If a gun was used, far more people would be dead. Plus, knives are used for other stuff, guns are used to end lives, so it makes no sense controlling knives. I don't understand why you're against making it harder for bad people to get guns.

 

[SharkBait]

You keep coming with cases from countrys which have significantly lower murder rates or general massshootings than the US and somehow want to tell us that their system does not work....It makes no sense. Like, at all.

What do you mean, the point is that in a place with less guns violent events still happen, meaning its pointless to restrict guns.

Wtf does this have to do with guns?... You really think the average violent mentally ill individual wouldn't use a gun in place of a knife if they had easy access to it? This is what the entire gun debate is about.

You dont believe knives shouldnt be limited but guns should? Why? Both are used in killing incidents, so you should be supporting the idea of limiting knives, and trucks.

 

[M3J]

I think it's clear by now that Shark has no idea what the differences are between guns, knives, and trucks. Might as well not waste time trying to explain common sense, as gun defenders tend to not have any when it comes to guns.

Anyway, I read that some Bernie supporters are voting for Trump because of what DNC did to Bernie. To that I ask, what the fuck are these dumbasses thinking? Why are they voting for someone that their hero is against? MAKES NO FREAKIN' SENSE! Whether or not they approve of the DNC's underhanded method, they're undermining what Bernie has been fighting for by voting for Trump! Jeez, idiots.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

You dont believe knives shouldnt be limited but guns should? Why? Both are used in killing incidents, so you should be supporting the idea of limiting knives, and trucks.

Eh, I don't know. I don't use a gun to cut steak or transport goods (that would either be amazing, or scary, or a combination of both).
Also remember that vehicles (including trucks) are regulated with Drivers Licenses and Permits.

Anyway, I read that some Bernie supporters are voting for Trump because of what DNC did to Bernie. To that I ask, what the fuck are these dumbasses thinking? Why are they voting for someone that their hero is against? MAKES NO FREAKIN' SENSE! Whether or not they approve of the DNC's underhanded method, they're undermining what Bernie has been fighting for by voting for Trump! Jeez, idiots.

Not surprised by their action. I've read idiots claiming that "Hillary doesn't need Millennials to win the Election", which is extremely idiotic if you ask me. If she wins this election, then it would be by the skin of the teeth; however, they'll soon have to learn that they'll eventually need Millennials (both Democrats and Republicans) in the future elections.
That aside, I've sorta expected that to happen. His endorsement may have hurt Sanders, but it is nowhere near the collateral damage when compared to the email leaks. At least with Sanders' endorsement, he did made it clear that his goal is to defeat Trump (and Hillary is the only candidate who can beat him; Jill and Gary aren't even anywhere near as popular as them); the emails spat on both Sanders and the voters (including his supporters), which I doubt they'll just sit there and accept the kind of behavior.

One thing's for sure: Both Democratic and Republican Party needs a MASSIVE reform after the election. To hell with Terrorism, Guns, and Police Brutality; we can't fix any of them without fixing the party.

 

[xi0]

I think that applies mainly with gangs as I assume more of them illegally own guns. But this would prevent mass shootings, if not decrease it, because the mass shooters legally bought guns.

No, it applies to all crime as far as I know. It's based on studies done at prisons.

It could potentially lower the amount of fatalities, yes. Anything other than that, who can say?

You dont believe knives shouldnt be limited but guns should? Why? Both are used in killing incidents, so you should be supporting the idea of limiting knives, and trucks.

Knives are limited. There are many laws in many states concerning the types of knives that can be carried concealed in public, much less owned at all. Just look at your own state's laws. That being said, what was to stop the person in that story? We don't even know the type of knife that was used. He could have been using a kitchen knife that anyone has access to.

And there are of course, a crazy amount of restrictions put on automobiles and how they can be driven. But with things such as transportation and preparing food, much more things can be considered an acceptable risk. That isn't necessarily the same with the multitudes of different firearms that are available to people who have no business owning them.