Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

In any case  though, it doesn't matter. People would have a shit fit for no other reason than "HUGE GOVERNMENT DATABASES WITH OUR INFORMATION" (you might say "but don't those already exist?", to which I would respond "yes they do") i.e. the same reason there is not National Gun registry.

Speaking of guns, what do you people think about the Democrat's anti-gun lobby stance? They've really hammed on it during the last day of DNC, and it was mentioned in Hillary's speech that they want to "pass common-sense reforms" and "keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and all others who would do us harm".

[Erkki]

In any case  though, it doesn't matter. People would have a shit fit for no other reason than "HUGE GOVERNMENT DATABASES WITH OUR INFORMATION" (you might say "but don't those already exist?", to which I would respond "yes they do") i.e. the same reason there is not National Gun registry.

Speaking of guns, what do you people think about the Democrat's anti-gun lobby stance? They've really hammed on it during the last day of DNC, and it was mentioned in Hillary's speech that they want to "pass common-sense reforms" and "keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and all others who would do us harm".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQikW57gu34

Assault gun ban was pure BS.

edit: find out here why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban It just doesnt make much sense to me as to why would people think that a flash suppressor or pistol grip would make a firearm more dangerous... Or the owner more prone to committing crime with the weapon. They're trying something similar in EU, except even more mad with almost complete pistol AND semi auto ban too, but fortunately it looks like the most lunatic parts arent going to end up in the final directive.

[mainiac]

In any case  though, it doesn't matter. People would have a shit fit for no other reason than "HUGE GOVERNMENT DATABASES WITH OUR INFORMATION" (you might say "but don't those already exist?", to which I would respond "yes they do") i.e. the same reason there is not National Gun registry.

Speaking of guns, what do you people think about the Democrat's anti-gun lobby stance? They've really hammed on it during the last day of DNC, and it was mentioned in Hillary's speech that they want to "pass common-sense reforms" and "keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and all others who would do us harm".

They are talking about insanely small measures that shouldn't even be controversial but people will treat it like the FBI is making all the gun owners wear a star of david.

The people opposing this will simultaneously oppose these measures as massive and decry them as tiny.  Frankly I think the best part about these measures is the way they piss some people off.  Well no, the best part is that they will save a couple dozen lives.  But the second best part is pissing people off.

[Lord Shonus]

They are talking about insanely small measures that shouldn't even be controversial but people will treat it like the FBI is making all the gun owners wear a star of david.

If all they were after was closing loopholes and improving background checks they wouldn't be controversial at all. The fact that they want to reimpose a ban that made no real sense just to placate people who think some features are "scary" is. Leaving aside the fact that the class of weapons the assault weapon ban targeted is responsible for fewer gun deaths by a vast percentage (the amount of people killed by all rifles since the ban expired is less than those killed by handguns in a single year), most of what is included involves features that are akin to banning cars with rear spoilers and flame decals.

[mainiac]

The people opposing this will simultaneously oppose these measures as massive and decry them as tiny.

So there's the one half, now just wait a little and we'll get the other.

[smjjames]

Anyways, Trump and the RNC complaining about the debates (though I'd have to agree with the argument against the ones that are on weekends or are in between two NFL games. Theres also speculation (which was started by the media, Trump never said it) that he might try to skip some of the debates.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/30/media/donald-trump-presidential-debates-schedule/index.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-debate-schedule-226464

Probably just Trump trying to maneuver it to get better results out of it and he'd be a massive fool to skip even ONE of the debates.

[SquatchHammer]

All this talk about "USA is too large to enforce this stuff, unlike Europe" seems kind of fallacious to me, since Russia is even bigger geographically, yet has no apparent problems with passporting people.

The problem in US is what we have with the American/Mexican border. We still have a problem with drugs coming over the border through ways that are only caught months and years after the stuff has gotten through without any suspicion. This is the problem the States has. Only now the European nations are starting to see the same affects that the US has been dealing with for decades. This is where most of Europe didnt have to deal with because they didnt have the level of open swaths of nothing. Yes, Russia is huge and they do have a similar problem with heroine going through their borders without any problems. All I have to say is look at the recent attacks on Germany or Nice, France, when there's a will there's a way.

[RedKing]

Probably just Trump trying to maneuver it to get better results out of it and he'd be a massive fool to skip even ONE of the debates.

I'm not so sure....he can just claim the debates are rigged against him, and his refusal to appear will just part of his modus operandi.

And that's probably a better result than actually going on the debate stage and making a fool out of himself.

[smjjames]

Probably just Trump trying to maneuver it to get better results out of it and he'd be a massive fool to skip even ONE of the debates.

I'm not so sure....he can just claim the debates are rigged against him, and his refusal to appear will just part of his modus operandi.

And that's probably a better result than actually going on the debate stage and making a fool out of himself.

He'd better have someone familiar with Clintons debate style (Obama? jk ) debate him then.

[Sergarr]

Well, I've just found a Trump twitter insults aggregator. It's, uh, quite big.

[Orange Wizard]

He's... not wrong about a few of those.

[misko27]

Well, I've just found a Trump twitter insults aggregator. It's, uh, quite big.

That protestors section, though. “thugs”, “thugs”, “thugs”, “thugs”, “thugs”, “thugs”, and “horrendous”.

EDIT: Can we talk about Khzir Khan for a moment? I think that that was a brilliant move by the DNC. He was the perfect sort of speaker: The Muslim father of a soldier who died in Iraq while saving his squad, who lambasts Trump as having sacrificed "nothing". Brilliantly combining "a typical Trump target" with "worthy of adoration by the general public". The fact that Khzir is apparently an excellent speaker topped it off, making it a worthy Prime-time speech. But when it comes to Trump, this gets even better: Trump doesn't have the self-control to not attack Khzir. He can't just *defend* himself, and insist "well he has a different view", he's gotta go on the attack. Now Trump is in the headlines for attacking the family of a dead war vet.

[Sergarr]

Yeah, Trump at this point has got very predictable and easy to provoke into a fit of rage. Not that it decreases his popularity among his core supporters, but it does work on some other pretty important people.

[martinuzz]

Now Trump is in the headlines for attacking the family of a dead war vet.

Trump confirmed WBC member

GOD TRUMP HATES FAGS

[KingofstarrySkies]

(let's not)