Trump back in step with NRA after doubts over Parkland shooting

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

Oh come now, you know why. They are going for assault weapons for now. We already know that won't put a dent in homicide statistics. After that, gun grabbers will say, "see, we need to ban more weapons. An assault weapons ban isn't enough!" Total confiscation is their goal.

That's the NRA answer.

 

The US started regulating canned foods, but canned foods aren't banned.

The US started regulating railroads, but railroads aren't banned.

The states started regulating driving privileges, but in not state is driving banned.

 

Guns won't be banned unless the majority makes it very clear that is what they want.  Currently the majority just wants rational gun regulation.

[UncleTouchyFingers]

Just now, heybruce said:

That's the NRA answer.

 

The US started regulating canned foods, but canned foods aren't banned.

The US started regulating railroads, but railroads aren't banned.

The states started regulating driving privileges, but in not state is driving banned.

 

Guns won't be banned unless the majority makes it very clear that is what they want.  Currently the majority just wants rational gun regulation.

Canned food, railroads, and driving privileges arent protected by the second amendment. 

 

And your last sentence - "Currently" (could change in the future) the majority just wants "rational" (subjective as hell) gun "regulation" (also subjective as hell)

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

While it may put hurdles on some people in some situations, that isnt the intent and you know it. 

 

I know they are dangerous by design, but there is case law, supreme court rulings and the second amendment to get through to do such a thing. How do you plan on getting through all that? 

Once again, there is no evidence of serious voter fraud.  Nothing that would come close to affecting the outcome of an election.

 

There is overwhelming evidence of gun violence committed by people who should not have access to guns.

 

Yet you favor restrictive laws on the right to vote, but no restrictions on gun ownership.

 

You may not see the foolishness of this, but others do.

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Canned food, railroads, and driving privileges arent protected by the second amendment. 

 

And your last sentence - "Currently" (could change in the future) the majority just wants "rational" (subjective as hell) gun "regulation" (also subjective as hell)

The second amendment does not allow unlimited, unregulated access to arms.  US courts up to the Supreme Court have made this clear. 

 

If you fear the future direction in which gun regulation may go in a democratic government, then you fear democracy.

[UncleTouchyFingers]

Just now, heybruce said:

Once again, there is no evidence of serious voter fraud.  Nothing that would come close to affecting the outcome of an election.

 

There is overwhelming evidence of gun violence committed by people who should not have access to guns.

 

Yet you favor restrictive laws on the right to vote, but no restrictions on gun ownership.

 

You may not see the foolishness of this, but others do.

 

 

LOL Nothing that would come close eh? Do you not remember Florida in 2000? 

 

And you didnt answer my question, how do you plan on getting such a federal law into place? 

[UncleTouchyFingers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

The second amendment does not allow unlimited, unregulated access to arms.  US courts up to the Supreme Court have made this clear. 

 

If you fear the future direction in which gun regulation may go in a democratic government, then you fear democracy.

 

I agree, and the language clearly states "In common use at the time" and clearly covers AR15's let alone pistols and everything else in circulation. 

 

If the democrats take legit control and change the laws following the constitution and has overwhelming support from all people then they won fair and square on the same field we all play. 

[BuriramSam]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

That's the NRA answer.

 

The US started regulating canned foods, but canned foods aren't banned.

The US started regulating railroads, but railroads aren't banned.

The states started regulating driving privileges, but in not state is driving banned.

 

Guns won't be banned unless the majority makes it very clear that is what they want.  Currently the majority just wants rational gun regulation.

I appreciate the anecdotes. Honestly, I don't see their relevance. That said, I would note that none of the examples you gave are Constitutional rights.

 

Also, I was not posting about what the majority wants. There is a small, but loud and well-funded minority, that would love to disarm American citizens. Rational gun regulation.... what is that exactly?

 

Let's take banning people on the no-fly list from buying guns. Great idea, right? NO. That is a clear denial of due process. We Americans who are old enough to understand the slippery slope of the power-hungry US federal government are very wary of additional power grabs. Taking guns away from the mentally ill? Precisely what does that mean? What if a person were prescribed Prozac in the past?

 

We have plenty of laws on the books already. I'm sure you know about all the failures of government, where they had at least a few actionable incidents in which they could have disarmed Cruz in Florida before he shot up the school. Why cede more rights to a government that is demonstrably incompetent?

[BuriramSam]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Once again, there is no evidence of serious voter fraud.  Nothing that would come close to affecting the outcome of an election.

 

There is overwhelming evidence of gun violence committed by people who should not have access to guns.

 

Yet you favor restrictive laws on the right to vote, but no restrictions on gun ownership.

 

You may not see the foolishness of this, but others do.

280 votes in one county in one election is a serious voter fraud problem:

 

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/11/07/only-on-2-nearly-280-votes-cast-in-2016-primary-by-people-who-are-dead/

 

As for people who shouldn't have access to guns, let's go back to my previous reply to you and start with Cruz. Law enforcement could have and should have stopped them. Unfortunately, the locals decided to get paid to not enforce the law. You may want to look up the PROMISE program, which gave local governments incentive to stop arresting youths for crimes.

 

 

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

 

LOL Nothing that would come close eh? Do you not remember Florida in 2000? 

 

And you didnt answer my question, how do you plan on getting such a federal law into place? 

I remember Florida 2000 very well.  I don't remember voter fraud, I do remember Bush opposing a manual recount, even though as governor of Texas he signed a law requiring manual recounts in closely contested election.  How would voter ID laws have changed that?  Do you have any evidence that there were illegal votes that changed the outcome of that election?

 

I assume you are referring to your vague question about getting gun safety laws in place.  Simple, get the states to pass reasonable gun licensing requirements that require gun owners to demonstrate they can safely use a gun, just as states require  drivers to demonstrate safely drive.  Has the Supreme Court ever ruled that requiring demonstrated competence in the safe handling of a gun is an unconstitutional infringement of the second amendment?

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

I agree, and the language clearly states "In common use at the time" and clearly covers AR15's let alone pistols and everything else in circulation. 

 

If the democrats take legit control and change the laws following the constitution and has overwhelming support from all people then they won fair and square on the same field we all play. 

" A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

 

"In common use at the time" doesn't appear.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

The democrats claim that its a tool that republicans are trying to use as a way to exclude certain minority groups from voting, because statistically minority groups typically vote democrat. They argue that republicans know this, and that we are targeting them, racially or demographically. Thats the short answer. They say this but fail to mention that there are tons of white people in poverty as well. And fail to acknowledge the 15 million illegal immigrants too. 

 

 

You do not need an official ID to claim welfare. 

 

 

I disagree. Firearm transfers and background checks cost money.

Working backwards....

paragraph three... that’s a wow justification. As far as I’m concerned, y’all can keep your guns, but not having to register them is crazy ( esp in a world where every damn thing needs registering, I m thinking firearms should be at the top of the list.)

 

paragraph two.... that’s amazing. Everyone blah blah blahs about Australia being a welfare state, but getting welfare requires jumping thru more hoops than one can reasonably count... but ok

 

paragraph one... so... republicans are making it harder for minorities to vote, as they usually vote democrate.... is that it.? 

 

I see heybruce has definitively explained obstacles that may make getting proper ID hard.... and that he persevered.... is it that poor people and black people cant persevere enough to complete the process? Is that what makes it racist? Even though there are millions of po white trash similarly effected, according to you, meaning it’s not racist.

 

i do appreciate that you have tried to effect an answer... thanks for that, at least.

Edited May 7, 2018 by farcanell

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

280 votes in one county in one election is a serious voter fraud problem:

 

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/11/07/only-on-2-nearly-280-votes-cast-in-2016-primary-by-people-who-are-dead/

 

As for people who shouldn't have access to guns, let's go back to my previous reply to you and start with Cruz. Law enforcement could have and should have stopped them. Unfortunately, the locals decided to get paid to not enforce the law. You may want to look up the PROMISE program, which gave local governments incentive to stop arresting youths for crimes.

Did you read your article?  People who had the same name as dead people voted.  In a state with tens of millions of people, I'm surprised they only found 280.  They probably didn't look very hard.

 

I'm going to dinner with a friend.  I'm sure there will be more later.

Edited May 7, 2018 by heybruce

[Basil B]

2 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

The Libertarian in me says legalize drugs. As to your concern, I think that's easy to address. Drug addicts shouldn't qualify for public services. Let a few rot in the street and the rest will figure it out.

Problem is in the UK I am frequently pestered by them for lose change, I do not give to them bet then some "soft in the head" gives them a fiver...

 

[BuriramSam]

Just now, Basil B said:

Problem is in the UK I am frequently pestered by them for lose change, I do not give to them bet then some "soft in the head" gives them a fiver...

 

You have a good point. I'm getting tired of handing over money just to get people to leave me alone. I should really quit giving money when I go home to America. Really, I don't mind it all when I'm here in Thailand.

[Basil B]

34 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So you think it's better to lock these addicts up at a tremendous cost to the taxpayers?

 

In most states the annual cost per prisoner is many times the annual cost per student in public school.

No we should do more to stop them getting the drugs in the first place...

[BuriramSam]

1 minute ago, Basil B said:

No we should do more to stop them getting the drugs in the first place...

We could also reduce the cost of prison by making prisoners do more work. Heck, let's shoot for self-supporting.

[UncleTouchyFingers]

38 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

 

"In common use at the time" doesn't appear.

 

Yeah because those goalposts of yours move so much. 

 

I was replying to this:

 

56 minutes ago, heybruce said:

US courts up to the Supreme Court have made this clear. 

 

And they have stated, clearly, "in common use at the time"

[Basil B]

52 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

We could also reduce the cost of prison by making prisoners do more work. Heck, let's shoot for self-supporting.

Maybe we should think of other forms of removing them from society, did we not have a remote penal colony on a very big island on the other side of the world... 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Bruce 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Basil B

[UncleTouchyFingers]

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I remember Florida 2000 very well.  I don't remember voter fraud, I do remember Bush opposing a manual recount, even though as governor of Texas he signed a law requiring manual recounts in closely contested election.  How would voter ID laws have changed that?  Do you have any evidence that there were illegal votes that changed the outcome of that election?

 

I assume you are referring to your vague question about getting gun safety laws in place.  Simple, get the states to pass reasonable gun licensing requirements that require gun owners to demonstrate they can safely use a gun, just as states require  drivers to demonstrate safely drive.  Has the Supreme Court ever ruled that requiring demonstrated competence in the safe handling of a gun is an unconstitutional infringement of the second amendment?

 

Man you are the reason that the term fake news was coined. You failed to mention that bush fought against the recount because Gore wanted to only recount in 3 hardcore democrat counties. That is messed up, and even now Gores people agree it was a historical mistake that made them look really bad. The Supreme Court ruled that Bush won the presidential election by 537 votes in the state of Florida out of almost 6 million votes. 

 

Yet:

 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Nothing that would come close to affecting the outcome of an election.

 

Damn son. Anything at all could have effected that election. 

[UncleTouchyFingers]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

Working backwards....

paragraph three... that’s a wow justification. As far as I’m concerned, y’all can keep your guns, but not having to register them is crazy ( esp in a world where every damn thing needs registering, I m thinking firearms should be at the top of the list.)

 

paragraph two.... that’s amazing. Everyone blah blah blahs about Australia being a welfare state, but getting welfare requires jumping thru more hoops than one can reasonably count... but ok

 

paragraph one... so... republicans are making it harder for minorities to vote, as they usually vote democrate.... is that it.? 

 

I see heybruce has definitively explained obstacles that may make getting proper ID hard.... and that he persevered.... is it that poor people and black people cant persevere enough to complete the process? Is that what makes it racist? Even though there are millions of po white trash similarly effected, according to you, meaning it’s not racist.

 

i do appreciate that you have tried to effect an answer... thanks for that, at least.

 

Man I cant tell if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me. 

[farcanell]

5 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Man I cant tell if you are agreeing with me or arguing with me. 

Trying for an intelligent discussion, in order to better understand your point, although I’m not sure how you could construe that as agreeing.

 

Let me be clearer..... your paragraph three is cringeworthy as a reason to allow unregulated transfer of a deadly weapon.... 

 

Paragraph two.... I’m surprised at this information, but it is what it is, I suppose.

 

paragraph one.... you have failed to show how requiring a licence to own a gun is discriminate against black people, despite being questioned multiple times in multiple ways.

 

summary.... i was trying to politely illicit answers to the question at hand.... but you failed to see this... my mistake. I was going to use extra words in my closing paragraph, but decided that was too adversarial, and therefore, I kept it nice, which was obviously a waste of my time

 

that help?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Man you are the reason that the term fake news was coined. You failed to mention that bush fought against the recount because Gore wanted to only recount in 3 hardcore democrat counties. That is messed up, and even now Gores people agree it was a historical mistake that made them look really bad. The Supreme Court ruled that Bush won the presidential election by 537 votes in the state of Florida out of almost 6 million votes. 

 

Yet:

 

 

Damn son. Anything at all could have effected that election. 

Yeah, they were both trying to work a tight race in their advantange.  To my non-political mind, the correct solution would have been a bi-partisan monitored manual recount.  I think the Gore was open to that, Bush...not so much.

 

You still have yet to give any evidence that illegal voting affected the outcome in any way.

[Slip]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Yeah, they were both trying to work a tight race in their advantange.  To my non-political mind, the correct solution would have been a bi-partisan monitored manual recount.  I think the Gore was open to that, Bush...not so much.

 

You still have yet to give any evidence that illegal voting affected the outcome in any way.

Some posters will never offer any evidence of any claims they make ever.  Perhaps because they can't or perhaps because they won't.  When they make themselves look like idiots in their responses they will suddenly clam up.  Such is their nature.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, BuriramSam said:

280 votes in one county in one election is a serious voter fraud problem:

 

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/11/07/only-on-2-nearly-280-votes-cast-in-2016-primary-by-people-who-are-dead/

 

As for people who shouldn't have access to guns, let's go back to my previous reply to you and start with Cruz. Law enforcement could have and should have stopped them. Unfortunately, the locals decided to get paid to not enforce the law. You may want to look up the PROMISE program, which gave local governments incentive to stop arresting youths for crimes.

Ok, I'm back.  So many people who want to make voting difficult cite circumstances where illegal voting may have happened.  Over a year after Trump made his BS "millions of illegal voters" claims, how many people have been prosecuted for voting illegally?

 

Let's put this in perspective; if a shop owner suspects he is losing profits to shop-lifting, he can make it harder to shop at his business, or make an effort to catch and prosecute shop-lifters.  One approach is idiotic, one makes perfect sense.

 

Republicans have chosen the idiotic approach; they have no evidence of meaningful illegal voting but want to make voting difficult.  There are severe penalties for illegal voting, and questionable benefits.  Why not set an example of some of these fools who vote illegally; identify and prosecute (with "millions voting illegally" is shouldn't be difficult to catch a few) some of them and prosecute to the full extent of the law?  Show people why voting illegally  is a bad idea.

 

Please feel free to provide evidence of meaningful amounts of proven illegal voting.  Don't waste our time with nonsense about "things weren't perfect, therefore we must assume the worst."  Show evidence that this administration isn't just making noise about illegal voting, but actually pursuing and prosecuting those who vote illegally.  Voting requires documenting who voted where; it shouldn't be that hard.

 

Millions of illegal votes, no charges yet?  Maybe BS smoke and mirrors, don't you think?

[lannarebirth]

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 It is you who called such measures racist as they discriminated against black people; not I.

 

Saying the second was racist because black people couldn't afford it!

 

I love the selective memory of the ultra right wing.

 

That's not what he's saying. He's saying the Left have in the past said any expense associated with the exercise of a civil right would be discriminatory towards the poor and people of color. The ownershipof guns is a civil right in America and if one creates costs to the exercise of that civil right then it would be similarly discriminatory to the poor and people of color according to the Left's own view.

[lannarebirth]

13 hours ago, heybruce said:

You are intentionally missing the point.  People who have not lived at the same address for years, people who live at the same address but don't receive official correspondence there, people who use a PO box, people who have lost documents in a hurricane, etc., will find it difficult or impossible to vote in Florida, even if they have the legal right to do so.

 

 

That's the way things are in America now. It's not just the right to vote. If you are in the situation you describe in your post, you will not be issued a library card either.

[farcanell]

Civil rights.... (and political rights)....are rights of equality protected under law. As in, everyone has the right.

 

It doesn’t follow that because you have a right, that the government has to give you money, such that you can exercise that right.... it simply means it has to protect your ability to exercise your rights, in need

 

lets be silly... I think it’s needed.

 

(Hypothetically) i have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... the pursuit of happiness, for me, means screaming around in a Lear jet, at 30,000 feet..... it costs money, but I have that money, so it’s cool. Except for those <deleted> at the FAA .... they infringe on my rights to scream around in pursuit of happiness... what? There’s rules to follow, that don’t sound right.... unfair... my rights are being infringed! (perhaps in the best interests of everybody under my flight path, or silly enough to cross my flight path... who knows with rules)

 

yep... silly... right?

 

but then.... here’s the rub.... joe unemployed next door, wants to exercise his right to scream around in a Lear jet, but can’t afford one.... he has to settle with sharing a hired Cessna, and plodding around at 3000 feet... toadally unfair.... how can that make him happy... his right to pursue happiness is limited to what he can afford.... is his right being infringed, because he cannot afford the same level of happiness as I can afford?

 

So it follows that you have the right to own things, but yes, their is a cost... you have to be able to afford to own things vs getting something free because bob next door has one

 

you want to vote... register... prove your identity.... it’s a political right, but to effectively protect the rights equally, there needs to be guidelines (rules)... such as being a proven citizen of the state.... proved thru official documentation, perhaps. (otherwise.... maybe I can jump over later this year and vote, who cares if no one keeps a track on it)

 

Now...  you want a gun.... technically you can own them if you adhere to certain rules. The “equality” under the law does exists... but you have to be able to afford and maintain that right to own and use them (licences/permits, safe storage, cleaning and maintenance, ammo, hunting permits etc etc)....... just as in my silly analogy, I would need flight plans, aircraft inspections, fuel etc)

 

so... if you are eligible, you can own what you can afford... if you can’t afford it, it’s not the countries fault, it’s your own. Yes, this means poor people’s ability to own is reduced, but their right to own is unaffected

 

now... when I come and visit, I can’t exercise these constitutional rights and buy a weapon, it’s illegal under the law, and not fair, because I can’t protect myself from everybody else.... I say this to hilight that there is rules to be followed... that’s one, and it applies to illegal immigrants as well.... but without requiring documentation to purchase, carry etc, how can the law be enforced?

 

but.... we are talking about racism.... nowhere above does any of this distinguish between race color or creed. It does not, it simply states that your personal economic situation dictates what you can do

 

rights to fair employment (better wages to afford a better gun) are a separate civil liberty.... you can’t just throw that in to your gun rights, or your right to own a Lear jet.

 

The left say this, the right says that... you need reform of laws to make them uniform, such that inconsistencies can be removed, allowing country wide equality, under reasonable guidelines.... and the Supreme Court, in part, agrees with this sentiment.

 

example... a US drivers licence is valid in all states due to uniformity in licensing requirements.

 

 

 

[heybruce]

Oliver North, convicted felon and the new Grand Poobah of the NRA has spoken:

 

" The newly elected president of the National Rifle Association has claimed that gun control activists, like those who have emerged following a deadly shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in February, are “civil terrorists.”" http://www.newsweek.com/nra-oliver-north-parkland-terrorists-919989  

 

Apparently survivors of a mass shooting aren't allowed to exercise their first amendment right to speak out about it.  I assume the new NRA president believes in an a-la-cart constitution, in which he can pick and choose the parts that apply.

[Opl]

NRA Says it Is Facing a Financial Crisis, Twitter Users Send “Thoughts & Prayers”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/thoughts-and-prayers-twitter-responds-to-nra-saying-it-is-facing-a-financial-crisis.html

Steve Kerr

 

✔ @SteveKerr

 

 

Don't send money......thoughts and prayers should suffice.

SpeedReads

 

✔ @SpeedReads

 

The NRA 'will be unable to exist' due to financial losses, group argues in legal filing: http://bit.ly/2M1E5s8 

5:46 AM - Aug 4, 2018

•  
  266K
•  
  84.4K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy