beechguy

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Totally untrue, banning certain kind of weapons is not unconstitutional. Why do you think there are no mortars on the street?

Many members of the military wouldn't enforce it? Nonsense, plus police job anyway.

Taliban is in Afghanistan.

What does being a communist/socialist have to do with this?

They are the first ones to speak up, and try to restrict freedoms. Mortars aren't the same as semi-automatic rifles. It seems several on here have difficulty knowing the difference between automatic, and semi-automatic, yet with their ignorance, will try to tell others what to do.

1 hour ago, Tug said:

You should have to prove the need to own a semi auto long gun just to make you feel big and bad doesent cut it the law needs the tools nessary to keep all guns away from unstable nut jobs and don’t worry gun nuts if the government wants your guns they will take them rember they have tanks planes ect ect your pop gun won’t stop them

In the U.S. it would be unconstitutional, many members of the military wouldn't enforce it, and so far the Taliban, ISIS still exist.

Wishful thinking by a communist/socialist??

13 minutes ago, Date Masamune said:

Among two choices of banning all guns and not banning guns I’ll take the safer choice.

The problem is, you will never get all of the guns off the streets. That's why the criminals have guns, no matter what.

1 hour ago, samran said:

Well, every few months or so there are ‘incidents’ at US schools (the type where ‘thoughts and prayers are offered afterwards)  where students (sometimes little kids)  in particular end up dying and it ain’t bombs and cars the perps are using. 

 

Or it could just be pure coincidence that bombs aren’t being used! 

There are laws about bringing firearms onto school property, didn't stop them. There are laws about ownership and possession of firearms by underage children, doesn't stop them. Most likely, several other laws are broken in the process.

Do we need the laws, sure, we need a basis for prosecution, if the perpetrators don't manage to get themselves killed in the process. But as a deterrent, it doesn't seem to be doing the job. In the U.S. it's a problem of society, can't speak for other western countries.

6 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Fairly sure there are draconian laws governing bombs and the use of vehicles as weapons.

Yes, but doesn't stop them though, does it.

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

It’s not me I’m worried about; don’t own a gun, never owned a gun and no intention of ever doing so. 

 

Extremely draconian gun laws would make everyone safer. 

And the same as to the other gentleman, it didn't stop bombs, trucks, etc. did it.

I'm amazed at the rocket scientists, that think banning firearms, especially the AR-15 types, is really a solution. As I already stated, some so stupid, they don't know the difference between semi-automatic, and automatic. 

In the U.S. the Navy Shipyard shooter didn't need a rifle, or even a semi-automatic firearm, he used a simple pump action shotgun, the Virginia Tech shooter didn't even use a rifle, he used two handguns. Timothy McVeigh said to hell with it, said I'm not wasting time, and used fertilizer to kill 168. The common problem is the criminal, not the tools used.

Bottom line, I'm glad NZ is stuck with that PM, and not me.

11 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Banning guns isn't dangerous at all in my opinion.

Then don't buy one, and leave the rest of us alone. I wonder if they have even figured out, what the difference is between a semi-automatic firearm and automatic firearm that was reported earlier. Same for the shooting in the Netherlands.

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

It is well acknowledged the Right constantly pushes for the 'right' for hate speech, yet forever attacks free speech when opinion does not represent their ideology; therein lies the hypocrisy. However, how long will it take for the 'right of centre' to finally understand that 'hate speech' does not, nor should not be the equivalent for 'free speech'.

For people like you, any disagreement is hate speech.

6 hours ago, farcanell said:

Oh dear... this situation was engineered by NATO post World War Two, it did not happen by accident... it was a conscious decision in the treatment of arms and military bases in Europe as a whole, which enabled a lot more flexibility within NATO.

 

if the US withdraws, then Russia becomes the preeminent Europeans power, in which case, the US has potentially lost the ability to build up forces locally, (as it always does)... so the need is reciprocal, not as one sided as you portray.... your version is naive at best, but more probably xenophobic.

 

but... if the US does withdraw, the Germans will retool and start beefing up munitions manufacturing (history has shown they can), to replace US supply... ie... make them instead of buy them, which is the current MO.... and that is how easy it is to replace the US... start your own manufacturing (discouraged after WW2 for obvious reasons... right?), vs rely on what is looking like becoming an unreliable partner

 

So... who needs whom more?

 

As I said above, surely it’s reciprocal... or arguably, europe is more needed, as evidenced by the US putting more money into NATO than the European countries.... because they sure as hell don’t do it because they like giving money away.

 

and then, if Europe isn’t procuring munitions from the US, US manufacturing suffers, jobs are lost, profits fall... which is not good for your economy. Again.... your position is naive at best

After spending 10 years in the Persian Gulf, and a couple in out of Iraq and Afghanistan, working with the U.S. military, I think I have a pretty good handle on things. 

6 hours ago, ballpoint said:

Yet, the only time a NATO member has called upon others to come to its aid for military support was the US in Afghanistan.

Europeans haven't had any terrorist attacks?

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

Um.... your linking a NATO initiative to tackle Gaddafi.... the US is a part of NATO, and the worlds largest supplier of munitions.... where would you get your munitions from, in need? Perhaps the worlds largest manufacturer? No?

 

what chance against Russia.... well as NATO is all about controlling Russia, and as the US is a part of NATO.... they would probably rely on the US, as the worlds largest manufacturer of munitions, to supply munitions

 

that said, with the US turning its back on NATO and world security, to concentrate on a wall dividing the North American continent, your right in expressing concerns about NATOs capabilities should the US withdraw, because Russia will be the winner of Donald’s initiative to withdraw... thanks Donald!

 

various countries form alliances for a reason.... NATO is a prime example of the strongest of post world war era alliances... and therein is the prime reason to maintain it, vs divide and attack allies

You're making my point, that can't do anything without us, they can't even build their own munitions, or plan well enough, to order in preparation. Again, the Allies that are critical, should consider their future, before running their mouth. They need us, a lot more than we need them.

59 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Please elaborate.

https://www.military.com/defensetech/2011/05/26/u-s-supplying-allies-with-bombs-for-libya-campaign

What chance do you think they would have with the Russians.

This guy won't last any longer, than the 16 others that went against Trump in 2016.

2 hours ago, Tug said:

You reap what you sow Donald is a pariah at home and abroad he is a laughingstock on the world stage a true dumpster fire of an administration 

Considering his critics couldn't even manage to sustain a bombing campaign against Libya, I would think they would be a little hesitant to run their mouth.

1 hour ago, doggie1955 said:

She also tried having sex with a 60 yr old man (Willie Brown) when she was 30 yrs old, and yes she did inhale in away... choke, choke!

This is the kind of woman who carries her knee pads with her at all times...

Fortunately it doesn't just apply to Harris, but the other Democrats as well, but this #walkaway movement on YouTube is interesting.

 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23walkaway+campaign

10 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

Brutal, illegal and immoral war....remind me how many kids at risk of starvation?

I don't know, but the place was falling apart 20 years ago when I first went to the Gulf for work. I don't think there was ever any chance of saving it.

Great service with FedEx.

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let's start with the national debt: Doubled by Trump's tax give away to the hyper wealthy.

 

Millions of Americans are being reminded of what the fundamental injustice actually is (not what you want to convince us it is) when the complete this year's tax returns. The taxes of blue collar and middle class Americans hiked to pay for Trump's tax give away to the hyper wealthy.

 

Your argument regarding taxing the rich falls flat when faced with the fact that throughout the post war years until the 1980s, the maximum tax rate never fell below 70%. And yet this is the period of growing prosperity for working class and middle class Americans.

 

 

Meanwhile over 60% of Americans do not have $500 in cash to cover an emergency.

 

So let's keep giving tax breaks to the hyper wealthy, let's keep increasing the national debt to achieve those tax breaks, let's continue to increase the tax bill for ordinary Americans.

 

As for your straw man "The assumption is people don't earn their wealth or success and those who don't have success have somehow been oppressed by the wealthy."

 

The actuality is not a simplistic 'success/fail', the truth most Americans live is working hard, to barely get by, barely cover their cost of living, barely cover education costs, health insurance cost. 

 

Hard working Americans floundering under a system rigged against them.

 

 

 

https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#7be880694e0d

 

 

I am always curious, why is it I see you guys bitch about the taxes the rich aren't paying, but never about the excessive spending?