horncyclist

So after both houses of Congress and an elected president have passed a ban and buyback program for these guns and have asked you to turn in the weapon in exchange for compensation for the property, you are going to break the law? That's what you're saying?

I had missed this reporting about Trump/Zelensky but this is probably it: But we’re reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda: He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign; he is using U.S. military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it. The strong-arming of Mr. Zelensky was openly reported to the New York Times last month by Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who said he had met in Madrid with a close associate of the Ukrainian leader and urged that the new government restart an investigation of Mr. Biden and his son. Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, while Joe Biden, as vice president, urged the dismissal of Ukraine’s top prosecutor, who investigated the firm. Mr. Giuliani also wants a probe of claims that revelations of payments by a Ukrainian political party to Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, were part of a plot to wreck Mr. Trump’s candidacy. In other words, Trump associates want the Ukrainian government to prove that Ukraine improperly acted against Mr. Trump in the 2016 election; but they also want it to meddle in his favor for 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/is-trump-strong-arming-ukraines-new-president-for-political-gain/2019/09/05/4eb239b0-cffa-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html

No but the issue here is whether Congress gets to make that assessment of the situation or not. The President has chosen unilaterally, Congress does not in violation of the law. To the early question of how do you support this guy: (1) you are dumb, (2) you're not dumb but made a Faustian bargain to achieve some goal and are a piece of shit. That's his support. Oh, and the racists.

A fitting slogan for America under Trump as well. Let's make her out president.

I don't think she's capable be of being authentic, which is her problem. She's built her political life around maintaining a facade, which has worked so far but not here.

Sometimes I wish Jesus would come back. I'd love to hear his reaction to all the morons that invoke his name on a daily basis. Also, the look on evangelicals faces when they realize he's brown and not some pretty euro looking dude with flowing locks and a well-trimmed beard.

Framed the right way from the bully pulpit you could put a lot of electoral pressure on people.

She'll lead with this corruption message against Trump--as any nominee should--but she's the perfect candidate to deliver it.

This is going to confuse the shit out of everyone's uncles on Facebook.

What movie is that? It looks incredible.

Bold, Biden. Bold.

Yeah. You misunderstood me. I meant that shotguns do not lose the same risk as ar15s (and similar) plus high capacity magazines. They also have a lot more utility, being more widely used for sport and a longer history of common widespread use. It is easy to draw a where ar15s are banned but other firearms are not. This rebuts the slippery slope concern in my mind. Keep your shotguns, though we should have increased general restrictions (ie universal background checks) for all firearms. Only law abiding citizens should own them and I think we should look like at requiring more training. You have to take a class/test to drive in most states. No reason you shouldn't have to do the same to own/operate a firearm.

To be clear, under existing precedent, a ban of ar15s and mandatory buybacks is entirely consistent with the 2nd Amendment. This Supreme Court, having 4 or 5 republican actavist justices could change that but if they apply existing law, the ban and buyback should be upheld.

When did I make this clear? I would focus on banning AR-15s (and similar) and high capacity magazines, those are the weapons of choice here. I think you could ban/regulate these guns that are problematic while allowing hunting rifles and handguns (limit clip size) for personal protection. I like to hunt but would never own a handgun, personally. With each of those, though, there's a lot more utility for a lot more people. On the other side of the equation, people aren't committing mass murder with shotguns. I also think that sort of gun ownership is more consistent with historical gun ownership--and if you're an originalist, what the founders contemplated people possessing. As part of this regulation you would start to push back against a gun culture and that pushback combined with declining interest in hunting would mean fewer guns across the board. That would be nice in my mind but people could still own, posses and carry other types of guns (with regulation),if they choose and the Constitution protects under under Heller. I don't hear anyone calling for a ban on all guns.

Ah, you'd have one or two Bundy-type things and then they'd give up. These guys are coewess when confronted. But you're right, it's coming to a head, young versus old, urban versus rural.

Yep. That's exactly what this was about. And if Dems were smart they would stop trying to not offend the gunnuts. Lead.

I disagree. I don't see our future with the number of guns we have. Public opinion is changing and people are speaking up. The NRA is in decline, exposed as corrupt. It won't happen overnight but our love affair with guns is coming to an end.

I did up thread. People possessing ar15s has zero relevance to the likelihood of tyrrany. The belief that morons with their ar15s are going to save us from an oppressive government is a fantasy and should not be part of any conversation on gun regulation.

The idea that the gunowning fucknut 3-5% of our population...in the age of information warfare and deepfake technology...that those guns are going to keep us from tyrrany. That's what I'm ridiculing. And btw, how'd we manage to avoid tyrrany up until the 90s when these guns started showing up in mass? There are zero reasons to keep these guns in our society. I want them gone.

Yeah, twisted people with AR-15s, high capacity magazines and ready access to cheap ammo. I'd rather them not. The cost versus utility consideration between an ar-15 and a shotgun is completely different.

If there been mass shooting after Mass shooting with shot guns then we should consider banning those too. There hasn't been and won't be. There's a difference between acting irrationally due to emotion and emotion jarring you into recognizing a rational position. The latter is what happened with Beto.

You don't see how having 22 people shot up at Walmart in your hometown that you represented in Congress for 6 years could cause someone to change positions? Or have the courage to say what you really belief? And he's right. You buyback the guns, push back on the gun culture, and this shit stops. The reason it doesn't happen is because republicans have valued short term political gain over doing what's right...and 100% constitutional. It's time to stand up to that. People are pissed and Beto is speaking for them. Good for him.

Eh, haven't really ridden my bike in years. Handle dates back to horn fans. Mass shootings have an impact far beyond the actual events and immediate victims. I had one happen 2 blocks from my house as a matter of fact. Affected the whole city, mass trauma. These arent just killings, they're acts of terrorism. And you're defending this cause...gun range fun? Tyranny? Slippery slope? Which is it?