Jump to content

horncyclist

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by horncyclist

  1. He's a child with toys.
  2. So will President Warren's Fed Chair appointee, Treasury Secretary, CFPB head, FTC chair, SEC Chair, FCC Chair, etc, etc.
  3. My internet still sucks and I only have one choice. Just saying.
  4. This seems on the scale of firing Comey. So we can expect nothing to happen.
  5. Those are good steps. I just don't know if it's enough. To stop this you really have to cut down on the number of guns. Maybe the regulation and changing views of the gun culture would be enough but I don't know. It's important to always remember with these discussions that republicans have been unwilling to even pass universal background checks.
  6. And criminals would have fewer of them because we would have fewer guns in our society. And when a sociopath completely loses it and wants to go shoot people up it would be more difficult for hm to acquire the guns and ammo to do it. If you take these guns out of society, we would absolutely have fewer mass shootings and fewer casualties when they do happen. Those that are defending keeping thesew eapons widely and easily available --and democrats who stay silent on the issue--are saying a few mass shootings a month are worth it. I think most Americans disagree on that and public opinion continues to change.
  7. More than that. He could also be prosecuted. And probably would because this is the world we live in.
  8. There was a really good oped published in the last week on the gun hysteria being the epitome of republicans commitment to minority rule but I can't find it again. Edit: found it. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/opinion/assault-rifle-ban.html "The premise of Trumpist populism is that the political preferences of a shrinking minority of citizens matter more than democracy." " Bear in mind a critical point: A buyback law could not take effect without approval from majorities in both houses of Congress and endorsement by the president. This is all but impossible without unified Democratic control of government; in fact, because our electoral system puts Democrats at a forbidding structural disadvantage, especially in the Senate, Democrats would need to command overpowering supermajority support to turn such a proposal into law. In that light, all of these ominous “there will be violence” warnings clearly imply that it simply doesn’t matter whether or not mandatory buyback legislation is enacted by duly elected representatives of the American people with an extraordinary popular mandate, because the wildly outvoted minority would nevertheless be right to regard the law as an intolerable injustice that warrants retaliatory violence. Just ask them."
  9. 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?
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. A fitting slogan for America under Trump as well. Let's make her out president.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Framed the right way from the bully pulpit you could put a lot of electoral pressure on people.
  16. She'll lead with this corruption message against Trump--as any nominee should--but she's the perfect candidate to deliver it.
  17. This is going to confuse the shit out of everyone's uncles on Facebook.
  18. What movie is that? It looks incredible.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Yep. That's exactly what this was about. And if Dems were smart they would stop trying to not offend the gunnuts. Lead.
×
×
  • Create New...