Hi arch... good question. The way I see it, there are two things that can be regulated to "control" the level of safety. The guns or the people. Since I am more concerned about a government that tracks it's citizens than I am about the selection of guns on the legal market, I prefer we regulate the guns.

For me the guideline is simple... Kill capacity. I don't imagine we can seriously END gun violence. But I think we can reduce it, maybe not the number of attacks but certainly the number of casualties per attack, by just limiting the kill capacity of firearms available on the legal market.

I think that line is worth the trade off because I think most gun owners are probably fine with their low-capacity weapons. It's only the collectors, dealers and "bad asses" that get shafted by this approach.

So, in your scenario, it would not be illegal to pass your gun to your son, so long as it's a legal weapon.

It WAS easy to understand and my bet is that some of those who "didn't get it" actually do, but don't want to admit that you have a point. As you know, politics is weird that way.


LOL - yeah... it's good to take a vacation from the bickering. I'm about to head for band practice where I hang with these four Trump fans but we rarely even mention politics, we just play music... It's SO nice.

Here's the thing Rose... When you are actively supporting something for one reason and someone else says that you are supporting it for a different reason. Who do you suppose the real authority on that matter is?

If you KNOW your eyes are blue and some anonymous guy comes online and tells you they're brown, who do you think really knows the truth?

I just told you that I am an advocate of gun control and that I am NOT asking for a complete disarming of America. I think I know my own position, so yes, the idea that we ALL want to keep regulating until all guns are illegal IS in fact, a joke.

Now, maybe you're only referring to a subset. Well, I can't speak for ALL advocates of gun control. Maybe there ARE some "nuts" as you call them that DO want to disarm America. But if we keep defining political movements by their worst examples or our own paranoia, our democracy will not be able to accomplish anything.

As it is, of the 20 or so gun control advocates that I know personally, not ONE of them wants to disarm America. I'm not saying those people don't exist, I'm just getting tired of our perfectly reasonable arguments being ignored because people are obsessed with this idea that we are all part of a conspiracy to disarm America.

LOL - I don't think so Rose... Speaking for myself (a gun owner since I was 16) I would like some regulation and as someone who just donated $5K to EveryTown to battle the NRA, I am very much a gun-control advocate and I'm telling you... your little theory on gun-control is a joke.

Well stated bro...

I don't think there is any room for doubt, especially after studying the history of immigration policy in the U.S.

Trump and his minions have made it so obvious that it makes me wonder about the people that continue to support his policies. Are they racist, ignorant or indifferent? Those seem to be the only possible choices.

Gun control is an effort to save lives. There *IS* no hidden agenda and this isn't Australia.

...and so mature.

Wow, I thought this thread was dead a year ago. Oh wait, it was... But you decided to resurrect it with a rant against Jews this time, which has nothing to do with the original topic.

Anyway... Your post is a perfect example of the kind of Nazi-racism that Americans on the right are trying so hard to deny.

Oh, that SO informative AND relevant too! That changes everything! LOL!!!

Aw... Maybe if you wish REALLY hard! LOL!

Yes, many voters saw the show, but the ONLY people that saw the way you apparently did are limited to that same 30%. The vast majority saw it the way I did...

...calm and collected Democrats going through the process of impeaching sh*tty president and desperate Republicans tripping over themselves and all their smoke machines and mirrors in clown-act efforts to obscure the obvious.

Uh... elections are based on the number of votes not how angry each voter is. LOL

Trump hit a ceiling in 2017 and hasn't done anything to earn more loyalty beyond the 30% that he already had. He's the first president with such a static base and he is depending on that 30% (and whatever hanky-panky the Republicans can contrive to give him an edge in the EC.

Yes, he got more than 30% of the popular votes in 2016 but that's because the Democrats suffered one of the lowest turnouts in their history, so it's more like 30% of the 60% of the voters who actually voted. Signs indicate that the other 40% will engage this time.

30% btw is the high estimate; the low estimate is 24%. It's hard to nail down exact figures with polls and studies, so I'm just going with the high estimate here. You might also be thinking about his job approval rating which peaked at 44%. But that's 44% of those polled and it's been noticed that the bigger the poll studies are (the more people polled) the lower his approval rating turns out to be.


Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post...

Critics of impeachment argue that the effort to remove Trump from office over his open invitations of foreign meddling in our elections will only ignite the Trump “base.” Those who say we should let this all go see his backers as an excitable immovable bloc of people closed to reasoned argument or new information.

Thus are roughly 40 percent of our fellow citizens cast as an unthinking blob that will embrace anything Trump says and turn out in droves in 2020 to beat back the elitist fake-newsers and deep-staters no matter what the facts are.

Those of us who support impeachment don’t deny that there is a “Trump base” but insist that mountains of polling evidence show that it amounts to 25 to 30 percent of voters at most. The rest of the 46 percent who voted for Trump have real doubts about who he is, how he behaves and what he is doing to our country. Even those of us who disagree with them on a variety of issues see this substantial part of Trump’s constituency as made up of rational and engaged citizens open to persuasion.


So, 30%... It's the biggest his "base" has EVER been. That's all he had in 2017, it's all he had in 2018, it's all he has now and it's all he will have in 2020. In the meantime, Republicans are losing congressional races and governor races all across the country. If anything Trump is killing the GOP.

Face it, Trump is hated by everyone in the world except a few dictators and that rabid MAGA-Nazi club that only amounts to 30% of Americans... at most. This is why Pelosi held off on impeaching him for so long. She didn't want to impeach him because she was looking forward to seeing him getting kicked out by way of election. I was too. I hope that still happens. I hope the Senate saves his fat ass so We the People can kick it out in 2020. Then dance in the streets!

It always amazes me how the "dumb act" is such a frequent goto in the defense of the gun lobby. Well, how about you drop the dumb act? The NRA has been THE constant lobby in Washington for opposing any and all efforts to control guns the way the government controls any other item of potential danger. That's what the NRA has to do with any this.


And that's fine. I'm not going to say the NRA has no redeeming qualities. But that doesn't change the fact that they are also interfering with the will of the vast majority of American people that would also like a little sanity when it comes to regulating products.


I don't know about the "snowflakes" whoever they are, but the advocates of gun control are NOT asking for zero tolerance. I support gun control and yet I own several guns. Can you figure that one out Sparky? No, what's happening here is that some people are being fooled by the NRA into thinking that gun control is a conspiracy to take ALL the guns away.


That's just pure and utter ignorance. No wonder you're so easily fooled.

'Had a look... and yes, I think I have a better understanding on your stance now. Thanks for the patience.

A couple of things...

1. You said: "And I think kind of shows how piss poorly DACA was put together in the first place..."
My question is how?

2. You said: "they are not guilty of their parents' crime..."
I agree, 100%

3. You said: "DACA is a bad situation all around..."
As far as I can tell, DACA is a reaction to a bad situation... one that defers action until that bad situation can be fixed... 'kinda like telling everyone to stop shooting until we can turn the lights on. Obama was 100% when he said it's up to Congress to fix the problem because you need to write laws to fix it and the President is not supposed to write laws, Congress is. The president's job is to execute the laws. (he CAN veto them, but he can't write them). Maybe you already know this - of so, let me know what I'm missing.

4. You said: "I believe the children are victims of a system that beguiled them - I'm glad the system is being fixed...."
I agree the "children" are victims of a system... ('Not so sure they were beguiled by it, but certainly victimized by it) But I'm trying to imagine how you think it's currently being fixed. Fill me in.

5. You suggested that someone was equating the breaking of "man-made laws" with "sinning" - I'm assuming that you are pointing that man-made laws are not divine laws. It's good to see someone else bring this up.

Oh... okay.


No its not, you're just associating ethnic cleansing with the methods commonly portrayed in the media, such as genocide. Other methods have been used for keeping cultures "clean", such as forced migrations and walls.


By putting things into context, Canuckus Deploracus.


There's a difference between noticing the effects of policy and waiting for someone to actually state the obvious. You may as well be that guy on the bus that's being driven down a cliff that says, "It's okay! The driver didn't actually SAY he was going to kill us!"

Actually in your case, I think you're just ignoring the obvious that HAS been stated, such as when Trump said we want people from Norway not POS countries. And before you try defending that BS with the excuse that that he was referring to well-educated people with skills, there is no reason to use ethnic or even national references to do so. He could have just said, we want "smart people".

Our laws should be filtering out the criminals not stereotypes... unless, you're a racist and you're happy with the results of the "not racist" policy.


I find it quite revealing.


Well that problem with that statement is that the law isn't actually as clear as that. You see, there is no law that actually says a person can't "be" here. This may seem like a moot point because it *IS* illegal to cross the border and there is no way anyone can "be" here without crossing the border, unless they were born here, right? However, DREAMers are specifically those people who crossed the border when they were children and according to our laws a child that does not understand the crime can't be guilty of committing it. That is actually a valid legal defense argument. The law I mention here is an adaption from the same Common Law that Canada and many other nations have also adopted. It's a law that goes back for centuries that reflects the humanity we have as a species toward the innocence of our children. It can be described as a measure of human decency.

When this puzzle was brought to Obama's attention he knew this had to be resolved somehow and so he asked Congress to pass a law for his administration to follow. Congress refused to move on the issue and so Obama issued an EO to defer executive action until Congress gets their sh*t together to tell him what to do. It was called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

The problem is that it would be very difficult to pass a law to solve that problem without interfering with what a lot of Republicans want; a supply of "illegal" people. You can do a lot to people who are desperate for money and can't go to the law for protection.

Since then Republicans have been in a position to sit on the issue, meanwhile Trump is trying to take that protection away from the people who have lived here almost all their lives, went to school, got jobs, and started families, many of them had children here and now Trump (and I guess, you) want to rip these families apart.


Exactly... "As though it should matter" - but it doesn't. So why did Fox make a headline out of it, why did ProudRepublican feel compelled to post it?


No one is incarcerated without being arrested. So technically, they can say "arrested" to cover the demographic.


I understand your point but the statement you quoted doesn't say they were NOT incarcerated, so don't assume information that isn't there Also, the incarceration rate is only different from the rate Fox mentions by two-thousandths of a point.


Some would say that perspective doesn't matter. America is a place where the law reflects the will of the people, not the other way around. It's also a place where people have the freedom to express their will and to challenge the laws and to change them through the democratic process.

It's common for the people supporting Trump's immigration policies to resort to stating federal laws as if they come from God Himself and the people are powerless to do anything about it. As if it's the end of the argument. It's not. Our immigration laws have always been immoral.


You mean... right now? LOL


I've noticed.


Good questions. One answer.

Change the law so that entry is assessed on an individual basis and only those who can actually be identified as a threat are not permitted. This would entail medical assessments for communicable diseases and criminal records.

I know the knee-jerk response to this would be that we would let too many people in, but I challenge anyone's basis for saying this. As much as some people want to think they are coming here because our country is so awesome, the reality is most of them only come here thinking they can get work or escape violence. If there are too many of them, the demand for cheap labor will drop and they will look elsewhere.

So we can let the market regulate immigration (since it's a much stronger force than Border Security is anyway) Then we can divert government resources to more important things... so long as everyone can get over their prejudices.

Yeah dude... I know.

Here's another quote from the exact same source... "We have to pass the bill". Right? I mean she *did* actually say that. Oh, is that not enough of what she said to expose the funny? Well, ya see what happens when you only quote part of a statement?

This was her entire sentence...

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

It was a humorous response to the way the Republicans were distorting the the bill with lies while it was being developed. I already explained all this.

So are you going to say the same thing? You remind me of that character from Spinal Tap who told a reporter that his volume knob goes to 11. The reporter asked what the point is and the guitarist pauses and just says... it goes to 11.

LOL