Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 05, 2019

The two mass shootings this weekend have inflamed a gun-control debate that never seems to go away and never seems to get resolved. In the span of less than 24 hours, El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, joined a morbid parade of American cities and towns -- places such as Littleton, Colorado; Virginia Beach, Virginia; San Bernardino, California; Las Vegas; and Pittsburgh -- as sites of tragic, mass shootings. In the not quite eight months of 2019, there have been seven such attacks. After each one, political leaders of all stripes send their thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims, and Democrats and Republicans offer radically different responses.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

This is a good article with the few minutes it takes to read it.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

My view is probably considered radical. I have no problem repealing the 2nd amendment and banning all guns - I realize that this is highly improbable and impracticable.

My compromise is to ban all semi-automatic weapons and magazines with a capacity greater than 5 rounds or shells. This leaves revolvers, pump shotguns, brakes action shotguns and rifles, and single shot or bolt action rifles. This would allow for home protection, hunters, and target shooters. I also want to close buying loopholes, register all weapons purchases including private sales, and increase background checks.

The time for action is now, and it starts in the House with Democrats - thems the facts.

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-04 11:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Uh, gonna shoot 'ya.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-08-05 12:23 AM | Reply

The time for action is now, and it starts in the House with Democrats - thems the facts.

Posted by SheepleSchism

They've proposed several gun control measures during this Congress. Republicans won't pass them.

You don't want to know about them because you'd prefer staying ignorant and/or lying about it.

House Democrats took a victory lap this week as their new majority passed two priority gun control measures that the previous Republican majority had blocked for years, but they appear to be in no rush to pass more.

"Yes, not immediately, but this session," Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler told Roll Call on Thursday when asked if his panel would be marking up more legislation designed to prevent gun violence.

A day earlier, the House passed a bill that would expand the background check process to include purchases made at gun shows, online or in other private settings, not just at licensed dealers. That vote was 240-190.

Those are just several of the dozens of gun violence prevention bills Democrats have introduced -- primarily reintroduced -- since the start of the 116th Congress. Other proposals include raising the age at which someone can purchase an assault rifle and banning bump stocks -- devices that can be attached to semiautomatic weapons so they fire at the rate of a machine gun.

www.rollcall.com

#3 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-05 03:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

When your political arguments have painted you in a corner, use bothsiderism.

From page 1 the alt-right (R)tard playbook.

Hey Sheeple 4 words for ya..... STFU!

If you need that translated into Russian let me know and I'll ablidge.

#4 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-08-05 05:25 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Moscow Mitch has already stated that he will pass NOTHING the democratic house passes.

Then he will go on TV and whine about how the democrats are not getting anything done.

However anything in any way no matter what it does to the ----------- will be dead on arrival unless it makes it easier to hand out semi-automatic weapons at lemonaide stands.

The NRA owned pinheads were out in full force talking about how it is a mental illness issue and not a gun issue and NONE of the useless mouthpieces brought this tidbit up...

"Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses"
www.nbcnews.com

So tell me again how both sides are the same. I love fiction.

#5 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-08-05 07:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

This article exposes nothing new, and nothing that both sides "don't get".

#6 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-08-05 07:43 AM | Reply


Good op-ed. Worth the time to read it, imo.

The conclusion is one I've seen elsewhere, and can agree wityh:

...Any real gun law reform is going to need to take this community and value system into account. Liberals need gun owners as allies. Today, in the wake of more mass shootings, good citizenship requires that the millions of gun owners who say they support gun regulation do more than think about their own way of life. They need to turn that support into vocal activism. In so doing, they may help bring about changes necessary to protect the communities that we all share.

In order for them to be willing to do so, gun owners need assurance that liberal gun reform advocates will not march down a slippery slope from red-flag laws, regulating semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines and closing the gun-show loophole to intrusive regulations that start to break down a culture that millions of people value greatly -- one that enriches their lives and whose roots go back before America's founding....




#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 09:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think the debate is actually pretty simple.

1. The anti-gun side states, despite evidence to the contrary, that guns are the sole problem and have selected "assault weapons" as the easiest target to attack.
2. The pro-gun side believes that any gun control legislation is just the first step. They are bolstered by the words of gun control advocates who say it out loud. They do not trust the government to write gun laws.
3. Politicians and media moguls know a winning issue when they see it, and they don't want either side to be happy, because donations and ratings might dry up.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-05 10:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#8

So how do we get past your items #1 and #2?

Or do we just continue to prove that the United States is a homicidal society?


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 10:06 AM | Reply

"In order for them to be willing to do so, gun owners need assurance that liberal gun reform advocates will not march down a slippery slope from red-flag laws, regulating semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines and closing the gun-show loophole to intrusive regulations that start to break down a culture that millions of people value greatly -- one that enriches their lives and whose roots go back before America's founding."

That is utter nonsense. We need to assure gun owners that any reform won't include semiautomatic weapons, large capacity magazines and not close the gun-show loophole. Sorry, I can't join the paranoid freaks who insist on such things. We need real gun control which will save live and the hell with the feeling of gun fetishists. I don't care about their feelings, I care about the feelings of the family members of those gunned down by gun nuts.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-05 10:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just a quick question ...

Have any regulations helped the people of Chicago? Baltimore? Oakland?

If not why not? How does your current legislation solve those issues, if it doesn't it really won't solve the "homicidal society" issue.

The Gilroy Shooter brought his weapon in from Nevada, nothing stopped him. No regulations, no borders ....

If people bring weapons in from out of state, who is to say they won't bring them in from out of country?

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-08-05 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#9 First, the two sets of idiots in paragraph 3 need to stop fanning the flames. Incendiary language, misleading cherry-picked statistics, and pandering are getting us nowhere.

Second, we need to start having high-profile discussions as a country about WHY people are shooting up crowds instead of HOW they're doing it. Semiautomatic weapons have been around for 100 years, but mass shootings are comparatively recent. The LA Times just did a great piece on the four things mass shooters have in common. In my opinion, peer support is the one that garners the least attention, but we all are aware of axioms about mob mentality.

Third, we need a panel that includes both sides with few politicians to sit down and generate a bill that pisses everyone off. If the NRA and Everytown hate it, it's probably headed in the right direction.

#12 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-05 10:39 AM | Reply

"Just a quick question ...
Have any regulations helped the people of Chicago? Baltimore? Oakland? "

In other words, our hopes and prayers go out to the victims' families but we, as a nation, are helpless, stupid and incapable of dealing with this problem like adults because boys will be boys.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-05 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here's one radical solution that someone proposed: guns can be used by civilians if and only if an elective abortion is being performed. They can then be regulated as medical devices

#14 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-08-05 10:47 AM | Reply

Regarding your second.

1. Destruction of the family, and its emotional support systems.
2. Access to these weapons, while they have been around, I don't recall it being so easy as to order when I was in high school.
3. Internet, what was supposed to make us smarter, but it has divided us.
4. Bleak futures;
5. Droning on about "toxic" masculinity.
www.unz.com

Hypothesis: the ElPaso shooter was from a broken home; was rejected from college and working a mcJob where he felt he had to learn Spanish; got on the Internets and found garbage. Bought a weapon probably didn't even train according to his manifesto.

#15 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-08-05 10:52 AM | Reply

our hopes and prayers go out to the victims' families but we, as a nation, are helpless, stupid and incapable of dealing with this problem like adults because boys will be boys.
#13 | POSTED BY DANNI

If you can't solve that problem, why do the others matter? Or is it a "white thing" ?

You don't think people in the neighborhoods aren't terrorized? Suffer from PTSD?

#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-08-05 10:55 AM | Reply


@#12 ... we need a panel that includes both sides with few politicians to sit down and generate a bill that pisses everyone off. ...

It doesn't need to piss everyone off, imo, just the very vocal and more extreme of each side.

As the cited article states,

...One of the most authoritative and interesting surveys of the attitudes of gun owners was conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2017. That survey shows the vast majority of Americans who own guns are not members of the NRA and that most favor some form of gun control. ...

That group of people needs to work with those who want reasonable, and not slippery-slope, gun control. Why those two groups? Well, imo, nothing is going to happen unless and until those two groups work together for their common goal.

Nothing, that is, besides more homicides.

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 11:02 AM | Reply

Trump's speech today LOL.

Saying peaceful loving things is like pulling teeth for him. Saying hateful ignorant racist things just flows out of him like poetry.

Now the pyromaniac arsonist is going to tell us all how much he hates fire.

Oh and BTW, apprently partisanship is destructive and bad all of a sudden for him. Since when exactly?
Since you finished calling democrats evil?

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-05 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Amac,
As previously pointed out the Gilroy shooter was too young to buy alcohol, but purchased his assault weapon legally. How ridiculous is that. Given the prevalence of young males 15-25 years old who convince themselves killing will cure what ailes them, some additional regulations regarding gun purchases would save many lives. Maybe a two week waiting period in which a background check is conducted. Any such person found to still be living with Mom and Dad or covered by parents health insurance would have their parents notified before the transaction is completed.

#19 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-08-05 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

3. Politicians and media moguls know a winning issue when they see it, and they don't want either side to be happy, because donations and ratings might dry up.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG

Applies to issues like pro-life versus pro-choice and gay marriage as well. Heck, you could include casino gambling, liquor laws and plastic versus paper straws. I could go on, but...

OCU

#20 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-08-05 11:14 AM | Reply


@#18 ... Saying peaceful loving things is like pulling teeth for him. ...

As I posted in another thread, let's see what he says at his rallies. That is the real Pres Trump, one that basks in the adulation of his supporters.

What will he be saying to those whose votes he needs to win in 2020?

#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 11:15 AM | Reply

Scheeple it would have to be 6. Most revolvers are. Otherwise I could live with that. I love revolvers.

#22 | Posted by byrdman at 2019-08-05 11:16 AM | Reply

Haha trump is blaming MENTAL ILLNESS.

I guess technically he's right. HIS mental illness and the mental illness of his cult.

Of course everyone knows the republican party is always so supportive of providing mental health care to everyone aren't they? Nope. No gun restrictions, and no mental health support. Just thoughts and prayers.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-05 11:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Access to these weapons, while they have been around, I don't recall it being so easy as to order when I was in high school

You are absolutely correct. My buddy and I used to buy guns from The Shotgun News and have them shipped to his dad, who held an FFL.

I don't think access is the issue. Again, it's the WHY. Why are people shooting up crowds? Fame, glory, The Cause, anger, hatred, video games, incels, too fat to fight? Meds?

#24 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-05 11:33 AM | Reply

#23 You realize, of course, that the Dayton shooter was a leftist?

#25 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-05 11:34 AM | Reply

My view is probably considered radical. I have no problem repealing the 2nd amendment and banning all guns - I realize that this is highly improbable and impracticable.
My compromise is to ban all semi-automatic weapons and magazines with a capacity greater than 5 rounds or shells. This leaves revolvers, pump shotguns, brakes action shotguns and rifles, and single shot or bolt action rifles. This would allow for home protection, hunters, and target shooters. I also want to close buying loopholes, register all weapons purchases including private sales, and increase background checks.
The time for action is now, and it starts in the House with Democrats - thems the facts.

#1 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Agree with everything except that ridiculous last part. It starts with the Repubs accepting Dems exisitng gun control proposals - thems the facts.

#26 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2019-08-05 11:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Why are people shooting up crowds?

Global warming. People are losing their cool, pun intended.

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-05 11:37 AM | Reply

You realize, of course, that the Dayton shooter was a leftist?

#25 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

And what does that have to do with Speak's comment.. or the point?

#28 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-08-05 11:38 AM | Reply


Another aspect...

We need to allow the CDC to collect information about the gun violence (not just mass shootings) that occurs.

The NRA, through its lobbying efforts, has successfully prevented (or greatly reduced) the collection of the data the CDC needs to assist in the determination of the problems we need to resolve.

Many people seem to think it is a mental illness problem, so why not allow the collection of the data that can determine whether or not that is a correct assessment?

#29 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 11:40 AM | Reply

They've proposed several gun control measures during this Congress. Republicans won't pass them. - #3 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-05 03:17 AM
If by 'several' you mean 2, but we know that honest people don't speak of 2 as 'several'. The House has only passed 2 bills on the Senate. 1 to make background checks required for private sales and 1 to increase the time the FBI has to perform a background check. The 'dozens' of bills introduced in the House, but not yet brought to a vote in the House, are not being blocked by Republicans, but by the decisions of (D) Nancy Pelosi.
Neither of the 2 which have made it through the House to the Senate would have had any impact on the mass shootings this weekend.
The title of your linked article : The House passed 2 gun control bills, but Democrats aren't in a rush to do more

#30 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"The time for action is now, and it starts in the House with Democrats - thems the facts."

A background check bill was already passed by the House but MoscowMitch killed it in the Senate. The problem is in the Senate with the NRA owned Republicans.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-05 12:04 PM | Reply

So tell me again how both sides are the same. I love fiction. - #5 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-08-05 07:27 AM
What strawman told you that both sides were the same the first time?
We don't enjoy your fiction as much as you do, but it's good to see that you acknowledge that you're making stuff up.

#32 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 12:04 PM | Reply

"What strawman told you that both sides were the same the first time?"

"The House passed 2 gun control bills, but Democrats aren't in a rush to do more"

What is the point of passing more bills if McConnell won't allow a vote on them?

#33 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-05 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

this debate is like watching re-runs from the '70s...the A-Team alternating with 3's company.
inane sometimes stupid but all ultimately meaningless.

i've heard it said dozens of times in the past day or two, that 70/80% of people, including gun owners, want far more stringent laws, background checks and some weapons banned.

and yet our elected officials take the lobbyist and special interest monies and ignore us.

until there is a nationwide cohesive group that can focus on gun removal from society..via lots of money spent targeting legislators in their primaries..nothing will change.

#34 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-08-05 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

. Access to these weapons, while they have been around, I don't recall it being so easy as to order when I was in high school. - #15 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-08-05 10:52 AM
You used to be able to order firearms through the mail. Shipped to you. But that was probably prior to your high school days.
www.bing.com

#35 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 12:12 PM | Reply

Many people seem to think it is a mental illness problem, so why not allow the collection of the data that can determine whether or not that is a correct assessment?

#29 | Posted by LampLighter

Because if the data shows guns are bad then gunmakers will lose sales, so they bribe the government to not do any studies.

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-05 12:12 PM | Reply

--What is the point of passing more bills if McConnell won't allow a vote on them?

To create campaign issues to use against repubs in 2020. It's politics 101.

#37 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-05 12:16 PM | Reply

Nothing, that is, besides more homicides. - #17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 11:02 AM |
Homicide rate has been cut roughly in half between the 90's and today. Whatever we've been doing seems to be working well in that regard.

#38 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 12:22 PM | Reply

To create campaign issues to use against repubs in 2020. It's politics 101.

#37 | Posted by nullifidian

Then all McConnell has to do is allow those bills to be voted on in the Senate and then the Dem's would lose that as an issue. But that would be to simple. No, McConnell would rather keep the NRA and Trump happy. After all, the people in El Paso and Dayton, they couldn't vote for McConnell so what's in it for him personally?

OCU

#39 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-08-05 12:27 PM | Reply


@#35 ... You used to be able to order firearms through the mail. Shipped to you. But that was probably prior to your high school days. ...

Also, back then, the NRA and Republicans had a very different position regarding gun control.

When the NRA Supported Gun Control
time.com

...The NRA's opposition to gun control, however, is only a few decades , according to Adam Winkler author of the book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "Historically," writes Winkler, "the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine."

When the NRA was founded by two Union Civil War veterans and a former New York Times reporter in 1871, its purpose was to help improve the marksmanship of urban northerners whose inferiority to the superior marksmanship of their rural southern counterparts was believed to have prolonged the war. During this time, the Second Amendment was not the association's central platform. Displayed at the NRA's national headquarters was its motto, "Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation." The association was granted a charter and received $25,000 from New York State to purchase a firing range. It also maintained a longstanding relationship with the U.S. military, receiving surplus guns and sponsorships for shooting contest.

In the 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police....


#40 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 12:33 PM | Reply

To create campaign issues to use against repubs in 2020. It's politics 101.

#37 | Posted by nullifidian

LOL so you've switched from bitching that the Dems aren't legislating (a bald faced lie) to they're only doing it to create campaign issues for 2020.

You're such a transparently pathetic hack.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-05 12:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3


@#38 ... Homicide rate has been cut roughly in half between the 90's and today. ...

Gun related deaths, 1999 to 2017:

public.tableau.com

About 30,000 in 1999, increasing to about 40,000 in 2017.

But to your point, not all of them are homicide.

#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 12:42 PM | Reply

What is the point of passing more bills if McConnell won't allow a vote on them? - #33 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-05 12:08 PM
Maybe the Senate would review legislation that would actually make an impact instead of the 2 background check modifications that would have done absolutely nothing to prevent any of the recent mass shooting events.
Perhaps Mitch just doesn't like wasting the time of the Senate on feel-good, yet wholly ineffective, legislation.

#43 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 12:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#38 ... Homicide rate has been cut roughly in half between the 90's and today. ...
Gun related deaths, 1999 to 2017:
public.tableau.com
About 30,000 in 1999, increasing to about 40,000 in 2017.
But to your point, not all of them are homicide. - #42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 12:42 PM

Those goalposts look awfully heavy. Why not just set them back where they were?

#44 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 12:44 PM | Reply

the 2 background check modifications that would have done absolutely nothing to prevent any of the recent mass shooting events.

There's a chance they would stop a future shooting. And even if it's a .01% chance i want to see it passed. And if McConnell's beef is that the current bills aren't strong enough, he's free to propose his own. But that's not actually his beef, and you know that.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-05 12:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Homicide rate has been cut roughly in half between the 90's and today. Whatever we've been doing seems to be working well in that regard.
#38 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE"

Must be the Open Borders.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 12:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1


@#44 ... Those goalposts look awfully heavy. Why not just set them back where they were? ...

So, if what you assert is correct, that the homicide rate has been cut in half since the 1990's, shouldn't it be a concern that the gun violence death (and the gun homicide rate) have been increasing (or not been decreasing as quickly) during that time?

(how's that? :) )

#47 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 12:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When your political arguments have painted you in a corner, use bothsiderism.

From page 1 the alt-right (R)tard playbook.

Hey Sheeple 4 words for ya..... STFU!

If you need that translated into Russian let me know and I'll ablidge.

#4 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-08-05 05:25 AM

Well, one could always make some subtle modifications to turn a firearm into a sex toy or something. Would that help ease the pain of your potential loss of your firearms?

#48 | Posted by john47 at 2019-08-05 01:07 PM | Reply

Must be the Open Borders.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 12:52 PM

No sir! I blame rock and roll, violent video games, LBGTQ, or atheism!

#49 | Posted by john47 at 2019-08-05 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There's a chance they would stop a future shooting. And even if it's a .01% chance i want to see it passed. - #45 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-05 12:45 PM
Is your view consistent for other controversial legislations that may have minimal impact on things...like a wall, maybe?

And if McConnell's beef is that the current bills aren't strong enough, he's free to propose his own. - #45 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-05 12:45 PM
I fully believe that he's not willing to tie his people to a vote that will have political repercussions, but doesn't have any actual results.

So, if what you assert is correct, that the homicide rate has been cut in half since the 1990's, shouldn't it be a concern that the gun violence death (and the gun homicide rate) have been increasing (or not been decreasing as quickly) during that time?
(how's that? :) )

#47 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 12:54 PM
Gun homicide has decreased since the 90's as well. Gun violence death rate of decrease is being driven by the rise in suicides. I am not opposed to people who want to end their lives. I am in no way qualified to judge someone's pain. I would prefer that assisted suicide being legal after an applicant undergoes a discussion with those willing and able to help.
The number 1 method of bringing down the rate of gun violence death (what a ridiculous terminology) is to allow people to choose a more humane way to stop their suffering.

Gun homicides steady after decline in '90s; suicide rate edges up
www.pewresearch.org

#50 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 01:49 PM | Reply

"I am not opposed to people who want to end their lives"

Then you're an -------.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 01:54 PM | Reply

I fully believe that he's not willing to tie his people to a vote that will have political repercussions, but doesn't have any actual results.

Then why doesn't he propose bills that WOULD have results?

Why doesn't he propose bills that will study the issue so that effective legislation can be passed?

Why does he prevent bills from coming for a vote that might be effective?

Face it, Mitch does not have the best interest of Americans at heart.

Republicans for the past 30+years have been more interested in blocking democrats than compromising on anything that benefits Americans.

#52 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-05 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Republicans for the past 30+years have been more interested in blocking democrats than compromising on anything that benefits Americans. - #52 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-05 02:02 PM
I have not seen a single piece of compromise legislation put forth in 30+ years. Do you have any examples of it that Republicans have blocked?
Make sure you review the definition of compromise before responding. It doesn't mean '1 side gets less than it wants and the other side loses more than it wants).

#53 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 02:08 PM | Reply

I have not seen a single piece of compromise legislation put forth in 30+ years. Do you have any examples of it that Republicans have blocked?
Make sure you review the definition of compromise before responding. It doesn't mean '1 side gets less than it wants and the other side loses more than it wants).
#53 | Posted by Avigdore

Let's start with the ACA. For well over a year Obama and Congressional Democrats attempted to work with Republicans to fix the health care problem in America. Republicans refused all efforts to compromise, negotiate or work with Democrats. President Obama put out what was, essentially, a Republican plan, and Republicans did NOTHING to work with Obama and Democrats to create the best possible law. That is what is meant by compromise. Republicans refuse to do it. Democrats and Obama were willing to do that, but Republicans refuse to even start the process. Again, it was a Republican plan to BEGIN with.

#54 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-05 02:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Is your view consistent for other controversial legislations that may have minimal impact on things...like a wall, maybe?

My view of legislation that has a "minimal impact" is limited to that which might stop the massacre of innocent Americans. But congratulations on showing you care more about the perceived consistency of an anonymous blog poster than you do about mass murder.

I fully believe that he's not willing to tie his people to a vote that will have political repercussions, but doesn't have any actual results.

Again- if he doesn't think it will help then where is his bill?

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-05 02:16 PM | Reply

To expand, it is a travesty that the US is the only developed country without universal healthcare. It is ridiculous that our country has a cost benefit ratio for health care that is far greater than anywhere else in the develop world. It is an essential problem in our times. Republicans REFUSE to do anything about it. Democrats try to address it. There are many ways to go about it, but it simply is not a priority for Republicans. So they refuse to work with Democrats on the issue. Refuse.

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-05 02:19 PM | Reply


@#50 ... Gun homicide has decreased since the 90's as well. ...

Any idea what caused that significant dip in the 1990's, and why it has been basically flat ("steady") since then?

#57 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 02:22 PM | Reply

Let's start with the ACA. For well over a year Obama and Congressional Democrats attempted to work with Republicans to fix the health care problem in America. Republicans refused all efforts to compromise, negotiate or work with Democrats. President Obama put out what was, essentially, a Republican plan, and Republicans did NOTHING to work with Obama and Democrats to create the best possible law. That is what is meant by compromise. Republicans refuse to do it. Democrats and Obama were willing to do that, but Republicans refuse to even start the process. Again, it was a Republican plan to BEGIN with.
#54 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-05 02:16 PM

The Republicans, seeing that the effort that was claimed to 'fix the healthcare problem' was going to do nothing of the sort, so they didn't vote for it. I assumed that by compromise legislation, in a thread about American gun culture, would consist of some compromise gun legislation. Any of that which you have seen?

Again, it was a Republican plan to BEGIN with.
Let me address this part. The mandate was a plan thought of by some Republicans, and resoundingly put down by the majority. Most of what the ACA became was FAR more than just that mandate. Some Democrat out there believes that vaccinations cause autism. If the Republicans promoted a law making vaccinations illegal because 'it was a Democrat plan to BEGIN with', would you hold Democrats accountable for not signing onto that law that was a Democrat law to BEGIN with?

(Stop pretending that the small part that was a minority of the Republicans idea was what the ACA became. It's dishonest)

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 02:27 PM | Reply

Any idea what caused that significant dip in the 1990's, and why it has been basically flat ("steady") since then?

#57 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 02:22 PM
There are several theories from the removal of lead in gas to the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban and increase in gun ownership and concealed carry laws expanding into so many states. But I haven't seen any claim to a definitive proof.

#59 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-05 02:30 PM | Reply

I have not seen a single piece of compromise legislation put forth in 30+ years.

Really?

Have you not heard of McCain-Feingold?

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-05 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We need real gun control which will save live and the hell with the feeling of gun fetishists. I don't care about their feelings

I dont know if you were trying to be a troll, Danni or what.

I truly hope you arent serious.

#61 | Posted by boaz at 2019-08-05 03:22 PM | Reply

Of course she wasn't serious, Boaz. Your fetish/hobby is far more important than innocent peoples' brains splattered on the pavement.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-05 03:25 PM | Reply


@#59 ... There are several theories from the removal of lead in gas to the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban and increase in gun ownership and concealed carry laws expanding into so many states. But I haven't seen any claim to a definitive proof....

If you go back earlier than 1990, you can see that the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's look like an aberration, with an elevated rate.

Maybe the drop during the 1990's was more of a return to equilibrium than an actual drop.


Another thing that is pretty obvious, is the holes in the data. The FBI data says that it is not all inclusive because sometimes the local law enforcement departments do not report gun violence to the FBI.

The CDC (gets its data from different sources?) seems to have higher rates than the FBI.

This goes back to my comment that more and better adat need to be collected and reported.

#63 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-05 03:29 PM | Reply

To expand, it is a travesty that the US is the only developed country without universal healthcare.

#56 | Posted by truthhurts

Think about this for a moment; the families of those people who were wounded as the result of these recent mass shootings and were taken to a hospital, many of them in critical condition, how many of them had adequate medical insurance coverage? I mean, how many of them may find themselves unable to pay their medical bills and therefore could face bankruptcy? Keep in mind that in some cases, more than one member of a family was wounded, so this would be an even biggest financial impact on them. Think about it...

OCU

#64 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-08-05 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

I don't think there is one American gun culture. There are at least 8 groups. I belong to 1.
1. Have no interest in owning or using guns (other than a range visit to see what it is like)
2. Hunters, farmers that shoot vermin, varmits etc.
3. People that need guns for their job, cops, guards, military.
4. Sport shooters, target shooters.
5. People that keep guns in their home for protection from B&Es etc.
6. Gun collectors.
7. People that carry guns in case they want to shoot someone while they are away from home.
8. Gang members.

I have no issues with 1-6 as long as they are trained and keep their guns away from kids and locked up.
I think the 7th group contain a large number of nutters that fantasize about threatening or killing people. These are the wannabe warriors compensating for something.
The 8th group is by far the worst, but it is harder to spot and neutralize them with so many in group 7.

If you are marching your guns around a school, I want you to undergo an immediate mandatory psyche evaluation, after arrest if necessary.
If you are a single male under 25 that attempts to buy high capacity magazines, mandatory psyche evaluation.
If your spouse files a complaint that you threatened them, mandatory psyche evaluation.

If you fail, your guns are seized. If you resist you are killed.

#65 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-05 03:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#58 | Posted by Avigdore

ACA is wading into way different territory. Don't forget the ACA started as Romney Care. It was produced by a GOP think tank and lauded by Republicans nationwide. Seriously I remember this being discussed by many on the GOP as "the fix" for healthcare in America - PRIOR to Obama. Obama started with it because in theory the GOP couldn't object to it. They did so anyhow en masse because anything Obama wanted they were opposed to automatically.

#66 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-05 04:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#59 | Posted by Avigdore
#63 | Posted by LampLighter

Where concealed carry is law the rate of death by gun goes up every single time.

Here's a little snippet on that: Permitting concealed handguns increases crime. States that passed "shall-issue" laws between 1977 and 2010 had a 2% or more increase in the murder rate, and at least 9% increases in rates of rape, aggravated assault, robbery, auto theft, burglary, and larceny, according to an Aug. 2012 paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. A 1995 peer-reviewed study of five urban cities, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, concluded that gun homicide rates increased "on average by 4.5 per 100,000 persons" following the enactment of "shall-issue" laws. A May 2009 peer-reviewed study in con Journal Watch found that "shall-issue" laws were associated with increased numbers of aggravated assaults between 1977 and 2006. Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck said, "I have seen far too much gun violence in my lifetime to think that more guns is a solution... a gun is more likely to be used against you than you use a gun in self-defense."

There are all kinds of reasons for the increase.

As for why the drop in crime. There's a great documentary on it and the answer is abortion. Freakonomics I have never seen anything that disproves this.

Here's a short video for those who prefer to watch... Freakonomics YouTube There are longer ones out there...

#67 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-05 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.cbsnews.com

I don't support banning guns. At this point, I want want the illegals may have.

Bumper sticker "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

Sorry, but if you think taking any weapon, regardless of power, from those owning them legally, then those guns will not disappear from those with them illegally.

#68 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-05 04:23 PM | Reply

I guess I fall into groups 2, 4 and 6. I have five long guns. Two are shotguns, a 20 GA pump I inherited from my father and a 12 GA pump I inherited from my grandfather (both of these fall into the collector category). There are two .22 cal rifles, one was given to me when I was nine years old by my father. It's a single-shot so-called safety rifle similar to the ones that the Boy Scouts used at summer camp when you were trying to earn your target shooting merit badge (considering that it was already old when I got it some 63 years ago, I guess it now falls into the collector category as well). The other .22 is a small-game hunting rifle complete with an nice 1.5X-4.0X zoom scope (I inherited it from my father but don't consider it a collectors item but more of a hunting or target shooting rifle). The last one is a .30-cal hunting rifle I bought when I still lived in Michigan and went deer hunting every year.

I have no hand guns, although I was supposed to have inherited, from my father-in-law, a couple of WWII German handguns he picked-up while serving in Europe during the war, one was a policeman's revolver and the other an SS officer's personal sidearm, but after he died, it appears that someone took them and we never discovered who it might have been.

I also have sufficient ammunition for the above rifles and shotguns, all of which is kept in a locked gun safe in the closet of my home office. The only people with the combination, besides myself, are my wife and our oldest son (he's the executor of the family trust).

As for group 5, note that I can open my gun safe in under a minute if I have to.

OCU

#69 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-08-05 04:25 PM | Reply

According to historical records going back 100 years, the number of gun deaths have rose from 1919 to about 1938. There was a major spike over a decade of a Democrat President that hasn't been matched ending around 1945. There were minor spikes during the next couple decades, but the numbers haven't really changed over the years. Let's hope we never have another decade of a Democrat President where millions lost their lives during the Democrat-pro-gun period. More guns and ammunition were produced during those 10 years than any period in the past century.

#70 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-05 04:37 PM | Reply

#69 Your gun culture is no threat to me, so enjoy. Guns don't concern me unless they are in the hands of nutcases or the untrained.
Your guns may even make me a little safer because those that want to break into my house don't know I am not like you.

I am much more concerned about texting while driving.

#71 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-05 04:37 PM | Reply

...he's the executor of the family...

#69 | POSTED BY OCUSER

Really? You're a sick pup. Freakin' has an assigned killer in the family.

#72 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-05 04:39 PM | Reply

"Let's hope we never have another decade of a Democrat President where millions lost their lives during the Democrat-pro-gun period."

You should have mentioned the part where the Democrats joined forces with the Communists to kill even more white people.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 04:40 PM | Reply

What don't we get?
You mean that American high-powered, high-capacity killing devices are oversold and easy to get and only very slightly regulated?
...
ohhhh one side gets that pretty well.

#74 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-08-05 04:41 PM | Reply

#70 and #72 are what it looks like when a man of little education and even lesser intelligence thinks they're being cute.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 04:44 PM | Reply

#67 The abortion and crime drop association is compelling. I wish they would do a follow up and consider the impact of sex education and contraceptives. Colorado has shown that liberal sex education reduces abortions without restricting access. My question is; Are unwanted births the cause of crime, where abortion is a cure but sex ed and contraception is the prevention?

If you want to reduce crime for your kids, legislate like a liberal. The conservative desire to inflict pain on others always comes back to bite them.

#76 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-05 04:47 PM | Reply

I also think there is a compelling argument that excessive alcohol consumption, especially by pregnant women, increase crime. Prohibition didn't work though.

#77 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-05 04:52 PM | Reply

"After each one, political leaders of all stripes send their thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims, and Democrats and Republicans offer radically different responses."

Let's be clear: The only Republican response is legislation making it easier to get guns. They have no other ideas.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 04:57 PM | Reply

#70 | Posted by Petrous

How about some links? Oh and you know full well what was going on during "that period". There was Prohibition, the Great Depression, Rise of the Mafia and a little thing called World War II... The National Firearms Act of 1934 started to address problems by essentially banning Fully Automatic weapons and several other categories of guns and explosives.

#79 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-05 04:57 PM | Reply

"As we mourn the victims in El Paso and Dayton and demand that the perpetrators be brought to justice, America's political leaders, especially those who seek more stringent regulation, must recognize that guns are, for many of those who own them, something more than mere instruments of deadly force. They express and change the way people understand their own political identities and the powers they have as citizens. Guns help make some visions of society possible while destroying others. For their owners, guns are the material embodiments of good citizenship."

That phenomenon has name:
Identity politics.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 05:00 PM | Reply

ACA is wading into way different territory. Don't forget the ACA started as Romney Care. It was produced by a GOP think tank and lauded by Republicans nationwide. Seriously I remember this being discussed by many on the GOP as "the fix" for healthcare in America - PRIOR to Obama. Obama started with it because in theory the GOP couldn't object to it. They did so anyhow en masse because anything Obama wanted they were opposed to automatically.

POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE AT 2019-08-05 04:06 PM | REPLY |

Uh huh!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a wholly Democrat construct because no Republican voted for it. I should know I read lots about it on Right Wing websites.

JeffyJ.

#81 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-05 05:28 PM | Reply

Speaking of the ACA, the Personal Mandate originated with the Party of Personal Responsibility.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 05:44 PM | Reply

www.rollcall.com
#3 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

I just read that sad little article you posted. Do you really believe an extra 7 days wait actually accomplishes much?

Let me know when House Democrats grow some hair.

#83 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 05:44 PM | Reply

"Do you really believe an extra 7 days wait actually accomplishes much?"

"accomplishes much"

How much needs to be accomplished?

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 05:46 PM | Reply

Moscow Mitch has already stated that he will pass NOTHING the democratic house passes [...] will be dead on arrival [...] The NRA owned pinheads were out in full force [...]
"Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses"

So tell me again how both sides are the same. I love fiction.

#5 | POSTED BY NIXON

Poor Nixon. His party's hands are ziptied by Yurtle and the NRA meanies. House Democrats aren't able to pass a bill outlawing sent-automatic weapons because, well...

Just because.

#85 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 05:49 PM | Reply

I don't care about their feelings, I care about the feelings of the family members of those gunned down by gun nuts.
#10 | POSTED BY DANNI

Why haven't House Democrats written a bill banning semi-automatic weapons, educated the public, and spent 24/7 promoting it?

Pelosi is on TV every day talking about Trump, but not about saving kids from being shot up with 100 round magazines.

What's stopping her exactly? Any ideas, Danni?

#86 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 05:53 PM | Reply

"Why haven't House Democrats written a bill banning semi-automatic weapons, educated the public, and spent 24/7 promoting it?"

Why hasn't SheepleSchism gotten new talking points?

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 05:54 PM | Reply

"House Democrats aren't able to pass a bill outlawing sent-automatic weapons because, well..."

^
Apparently "because it's flagrantly unconstitutional" isn't supposed to dissuade Congress.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 05:56 PM | Reply

"Pelosi is on TV every day talking about Trump, but not about saving kids from being shot up with 100 round magazines."

Those are already banned in California.
www.sfchronicle.com

A ban on the sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds has been a linchpin of California's efforts to prevent mass shootings for nearly two decades.

But in the span of a single week after a federal judge temporarily set aside the prohibition, hundreds of thousands of the devices, if not millions, made their way into the hands of state residents, industry leaders say.

The run on high-capacity magazines from March 29 to April 5 -- so fervid that online traffic from gun enthusiasts around the state crashed at least one retail website -- was hailed as "Freedom Week" by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and criticized as an alarming safety breach by gun-control advocates.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:00 PM | Reply

Semi-autos can be banned. Democrats aren't even trying. Six states and DC currently have a mixed ban on semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

Assault weapons legislation in the United States - en.wikipedia.org

#90 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:03 PM | Reply

"Democrats aren't even trying."

Citation needed.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:04 PM | Reply

"Six states and DC currently have a mixed ban on semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotguns."

Republican states or Democrat states?

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:05 PM | Reply

"But in the span of a single week after a federal judge temporarily set aside the prohibition, hundreds of thousands of the devices, if not millions, made their way into the hands of state residents, industry leaders say."

Yes, we need a federal ban. Democrats aren't even trying.

See Chicago.

#93 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:05 PM | Reply

#92 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You're a tool. We need federal gun control.

Democrats aren't even trying.

#94 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:06 PM | Reply

"Yes, we need a federal ban."

We do?
Do you really believe an extra 7 days wait, or whatever it is you're deflecting to this time, actually accomplishes much?
Do you have evidence to support your belief?

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:07 PM | Reply

"We need federal gun control."

What's that even mean?
???

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:07 PM | Reply

Why haven't House Democrats written a bill banning semi-automatic weapons, educated the public, and spent 24/7 promoting it?

Why is Sherp such a fkkking moron? Just for you, stupid.

"@SenateMajLdr McConnell must call the Senate back for an emergency session to put the House-passed universal background checks legislation on the Senate floor for debate and a vote immediately," wrote Schumer on Twitter.

The Kentucky Republican has blocked gun control legislation in the Senate that had previously passed the House by wide margins. McConnell had the bills placed on the Senate calendar, rather than having them referred to a committee to potentially be passed by the full Senate. Here's what that legislation would do.

www.usatoday.com


As for public education. Trump put Betsy DeVos as head of it so she could personally dismantle it.

But here are 6 federal bills passed in 2019.

www.ncsl.org

#97 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-05 06:07 PM | Reply

Democrats aren't even trying.
#94 | POSTED BY SHERP

Don't worry. Trump will make it worse.

#98 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-05 06:09 PM | Reply

"We need federal gun control.
Democrats aren't even trying.
#94 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM"

Which party are you supporting, on the issue of gun control?

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:10 PM | Reply

Which party are you supporting, on the issue of gun control?

#99 | Posted by snoofy

The one which is WORSE for gun control obviously.

Just like he wants to protect the planet by defending the party that is WORSE for the environment.

Just like he wants to crack down on wall street by defending the party that is WORSE on wall street regulation

It makes no sense til you accept he's just a paid russian troll.

#100 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-05 06:13 PM | Reply

Yes, we need a federal ban. Democrats aren't even trying.

See Chicago.

#93 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Tell me stupid4trump, what is chicago supposed to do about guns that come over from the redneck state of indiana?

Search every car and person crossing into the city?

Local gun laws are pointless. Only national laws work. Your party prevents those from being passed. Then you whine about the other party doing nothing because that's the only job you could get.

#101 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-05 06:14 PM | Reply

Poor Clownshack. His party is being held back from passing a House bill to outlaw semi-automatic weapons that kill children because it would never fly anyways.

So no need to even try. Instead they propose extending the waiting period by 7 days so it takes a little longer to get an assault rifle and 100 round clip.

They aren't even trying. All Pelosi does is babble about Trump. Meanwhile school's about to start again and Dem's do nothing to protect them.

#102 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:15 PM | Reply

Still no word if the states with the kind of gun control SheepleSchism wants are Democrat or Republican...
Shocking how that information wasn't immediately forthcoming!

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:15 PM | Reply

"Meanwhile school's about to start again and Dem's do nothing to protect them."

Is anyone else doing nothing to protect them, or is it just "Dem's?"

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:16 PM | Reply

Only national laws work. Your party prevents those from being passed.
#101 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Poor SpeaksNutter, defeated by the evil GOP, so no need to try.

Pass a nat'l ban on semi-auto weapons in the House and wave that paper on CNN and NBC for the next 6 months educating the public.

Why doesn't your party have the the balls?

#105 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Instead they propose extending the waiting period by 7 days so it takes a little longer to get an assault rifle and 100 round clip."

"Do you really believe an extra 7 days wait actually accomplishes much?"
"accomplishes much"
How much needs to be accomplished?

^
Still waiting to find out how much needs to be accomplished.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:18 PM | Reply

Is anyone else doing nothing to protect them, or is it just "Dem's?"
#104 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You expect the NRA owned GOP to pass something?

HAHAHAHAHA!. Dem's aren't even trying. Grow some hair, Pelosi.

#107 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:18 PM | Reply

"Why doesn't your party have the the balls?"

There's strong gun control in Russia, is that what you're referring to?

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:18 PM | Reply

Poor Clownshack.

Poor Sherp.

His racist, xenophobic brethren are murdering people at an alarming rate and he can't figure out whether to cheer them on for killing brown people or condemn Democrats for the loss of white lives.

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-05 06:19 PM | Reply

Still waiting to find out how much needs to be accomplished.
#106 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Keep waiting, just like your party. #DoingNothing about guns.

#110 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:19 PM | Reply

"You expect the NRA owned GOP to pass something?"

Sure. I expect them to make it easier to get guns.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:19 PM | Reply

Yes, we need a federal ban. Democrats aren't even trying.
See Chicago.
#93 | Posted by SheepleSchism

This is what happens when you have very little mental capacity. You spew balderdash all over the place.

#112 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-05 06:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#DoingNothing about guns

^
That's a lie.

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:19 PM | Reply

--paid russian troll.

beep...beep...beep...speakbot sucessfully launched, Captain

"You have the bridge, No. 1. Upload additional code as needed."

#114 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-05 06:21 PM | Reply

#DoingNothing about guns.
#110 | POSTED BY SHERP

As opposed to your Trumpublican brethren who are putting up billboards suggesting they murder specific congressional representatives in the House of Representatives.

Sherp is just another Deplorable, cheering on murderers.

#115 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-05 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sherp is just another Deplorable, cheering on murderers.
#115 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I support repealing the 2nd Amendment and banning all weapons, Clown. Knowing that's impossible, I support a compromise. Ban all semi-automatic weapons and magazines greater than 5 rounds. Revolvers, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles are the only choices available.

Unfortunately, your party isn't even trying.

Instead, they're just dribbling out feel-good bills about waiting 7 more days. What a pathetic pack of weakling do-nothings.

#116 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I support repealing the 2nd Amendment and banning all weapons"

Then go find a party that supports that, and stop trying to pretend it is the Democrat platform.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:33 PM | Reply

"Instead, they're just dribbling out feel-good bills about waiting 7 more days"

Then go find another party that writes better legislation.

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:34 PM | Reply

"Unfortunately, your party isn't even trying."

Do you even have a party?
Easy to play the game you're playing.

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:34 PM | Reply

"What a pathetic pack of weakling do-nothings."

Well then clearly Democrats aren't the party for a tough guy like you.
Why don't you go hang out with your own kind, and encourage them to do the right thing?

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then how are Democrats planning on stopping the mass shooters?

They don't have a plan. All they have is political aspirations.

#121 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:37 PM | Reply

"Then how are Democrats planning on stopping the mass shooters?"

Six states and DC currently have a mixed ban on semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotguns.
Assault weapons legislation in the United States
#90 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:41 PM | Reply

"Leave it to the states" - Snoofy's Solution

See Chicago.

"But in the span of a single week after a federal judge temporarily set aside the prohibition, hundreds of thousands of the devices, if not millions, made their way into the hands of state residents, industry leaders say."

Your party isn't even trying.

#123 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Leave it to the states" - Snoofy's Solution
See Chicago."

Chicago: Not A State.

Stay in school, kids!

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I support repealing the 2nd Amendment and banning all weapons, Clown.

So, you got nothing but pipe dreams. Got it.

Knowing that's impossible, I support a compromise. Ban all semi-automatic weapons and magazines greater than 5 rounds.

Similar to what most democrats are proposing. Got it.

Unfortunately, your party isn't even trying.

My party isn't trying? They're the only ones proposing banning assault weapons and universal background checks.

Meanwhile your party is actively trying to make gun ownership easier.

Why do you support evil?

they're just dribbling out feel-good bills about waiting 7 more days. What a pathetic pack of weakling do-nothings.

Weren't you just admitting ending the 2nd amendment was impossible? Yet, you're upset Democrats aren't doing it.

But, you have zero complaints about the republicans who want to hand out assault rifles to everyone*.

*anyone with skin tone darker than a sheet of paper is not eligible.

#125 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-05 06:45 PM | Reply

"Your party isn't even trying."

Six states and DC currently have a mixed ban on semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotguns.
Assault weapons legislation in the United States
#90 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:45 PM | Reply

"Weren't you just admitting ending the 2nd amendment was impossible? Yet, you're upset Democrats aren't doing it"

Sometimes I think one half of the committee doesn't realize what the other half is writing.

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#125 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

What bill have democrats proposed banning semi-automatic weapons nationwide?

#128 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:48 PM | Reply

Pass a nat'l ban on semi-auto weapons in the House and wave that paper on CNN and NBC for the next 6 months educating the public.

Why doesn't your party have the the balls?

#105 | Posted by SheepleSchism

How are they supposed to do that when repubs wont even re open congress?

Dems put those skidmarks in your underwear too didn't they?

#129 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-05 06:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here comes the crazy train.

#130 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 06:50 PM | Reply

"What bill have democrats proposed banning semi-automatic weapons nationwide?"

Why hasn't your party?

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 06:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Now YOU'RE not even trying Snoofy. We need a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Until then, the mass-shootings will continue. We also need to be able to apprehend and hold nutters for evaluation.

But I expect you oppose that as well, since you're on record saying, "but who decides?". You deserve democrat inaction.

#132 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-05 07:03 PM | Reply

"I support repealing the 2nd Amendment and banning all weapons, Clown. Knowing that's impossible, I support a compromise."

And with whom, precisely, are you hoping to make this "compromise?"
It's.. it's not these guys who never compromise on guns, is it?

"You expect the NRA owned GOP to pass something?
#107 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM"

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 07:04 PM | Reply

"But I expect you oppose that as well, since you're on record saying, "but who decides?"

That was Andrea, a mattress.
(And you know that.)

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 07:05 PM | Reply

"We need a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons."

Why hasn't your party proposed one?

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 07:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We need a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons.

#132 | Posted by SheepleSchism

So why do you spend all day every day fighting to defend the party that will die to prevent that from happening?

#136 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-05 07:09 PM | Reply

I see sheeple is sharting his tired schtick all over this thread. He is either defending the pedo rapist racist in chief or condeming the dems for not being left enough to split the party.

Get new material, or at least try and be less obvious.

#137 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-05 07:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I think I found the law SheepleSchism is clamoring for:

Russian citizens over 18 years of age can obtain a firearms license after attending gun-safety classes and passing a federal test and background check. The license is for five years and may be renewed. Firearms may be acquired for self-defense, hunting, or sports activities. Carrying permits may be issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes. Initially, purchase is limited to long smooth-bore firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules (18 ft⋅lbf). After five years of shotgun ownership, rifles may be purchased. Handguns are generally not allowed. Rifles and shotguns with barrels less than 500 mm (20 in) long are prohibited, as are firearms which shoot in bursts or have more than a 10-cartridge capacity. Suppressors are prohibited. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns (up to five shotguns and up to five rifles) unless they are part of a registered gun collection. en.wikipedia.org

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-05 07:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

These dummies like the look of the assault rifles.
Ban them.
The cat is out of the bag already, but it's a start.
(Yes, I'm aware they can get a ruger mini 14, but those don't appeal to these whackos)

#139 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-08-05 07:14 PM | Reply

#138 | Posted by snoofy

I noticed that too. Sheep4trump thinks america should copy his country's gun policy. In this one case, he's actually right.

#140 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-05 07:17 PM | Reply

These dummies like the look of the assault rifles.
Ban them.

Not sure you legally can.

Is the ownership of assault rifles protected by the 2nd amendment?

#141 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-05 07:20 PM | Reply

Well a good start would be to ban future production (for the US market) and sales.
I doubt confiscation of existing weapons is feasible, but they should draw extra scrutiny when resold.

Whatever happens it needs to be federal.
I live in NY and we have a lot of gun laws. Some make sense, others are stupid, but a lot of them would restrict access to the guns that are being used elsewhere in these shootings.
Sure, a person can still find 30 round or 100 round mags, and not care about the consequences, but it's still a start.

I do worry about the slippery slope of gun control, but these "assault" style rifles attract weirdos in large numbers.

#142 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-08-05 07:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You know how the religious want women to see pictures of abortions

how they have to be counseled about their choices

how they are required to wait and possibly reconsider their choice to abort

isn't that a great idea that all gun sellers should have to adopt

pictures of dead children shot all to pieces..and you could limit it to pictures that resulted from the same caliber of gun that was being considered...just to be fair

they'd need to be counseled about all the possible ramifications of owning a gun

make them take the pictures home with them and consider their choice

#143 | Posted by ABlock at 2019-08-05 10:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#143 How about when the ratio of guns sold to lives lost approaches 1/1000th the ratio of abortions performed to lives lost we can implement something like that.

#144 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-06 06:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In order for them to be willing to do so, gun owners need assurance that liberal gun reform advocates will not march down a slippery slope from red-flag laws, regulating semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines and closing the gun-show loophole to intrusive regulations that start to break down a culture that millions of people value greatly -- one that enriches their lives and whose roots go back before America's founding....

The slippery slope argument is a specious argument to enable pols to do nothing. Just about any law can be thought of as a slippery slope to doing something that someone would disapprove of.

More needs to be done to correlate (and advertise) a representative's vote with the rep's 1) voting record; 2) amount of donations received from the NRA; and 3) constituent opinion poll(s). This type of information will clearly show whether or not the rep is truly reflecting the interests of his/her constituents.

#145 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2019-08-06 07:22 AM | Reply

All the cons here with ideas on how to begin thinking. Why didn't you do anything before? Losers.

#146 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-08-06 11:06 AM | Reply

Comes Now the Complainant: BruceBanner

#147 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 11:17 AM | Reply

Why hasn't your party proposed one?
#135 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

What party is that, simpleton? The Independent Liberal Party of America?

Pelosi is supposedly a liberal and controls the House. Either she is in favor of an assault weapons and large magazine ban, or she's not. It's no different that impeachment or immigration. You can have a handful of lower tiered representatives causing a ruckus, but that amounts to #DoNothing unless Pelosi whips it into being. Further, You've Schumer in the Senate (who likely can't get it passed) but CAN whip a full Dem support, and maybe get a couple R's to join in.

By using a house bill and whipping the senate, then take it to the people and talk it into the ground.

Gal dug up some spiderweb covered bills yesterday that have never seen the light of day in Dem press conferences. The focus has been on Trump, impeachment, Trump, Mueller, Impeachment, Trump, what Trump said, what Melania did, Ivanka and Jared.

You people are obsessed with Trump. Get obsessed with gun control.

#148 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 11:27 AM | Reply

Sheeple really is a piece of work, ie giant schitt heap.

First claims Dems aren't doing anything.

Gal politely hands him his ass.

He writes them off as "cobweb covered" and not sufficiently publicized for his "standards", so right back to square one.

GFY you intellectually dishonest jackass.

#149 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-06 12:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Is the ownership of assault rifles protected by the 2nd amendment?

#141 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-08-05 07:20 PM | FLAG: You need to read up on the background of the reason/purpose of the 2nd and why it comes in immediately behind Freedom Of Speech. HINT: It was never about hunting.

#150 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-06 12:08 PM | Reply

I went to a gun show last month to buy a set of 4 hand-crafted, Damascus steel kitchen knives.

The nuts were out in full force. Not theres anything wrong with owning guns, I own guns too. but when you see a large number of people who've obviously never owned a firearm, show up and go straight to the piles of cheap AR15s, it triggers a flag.

Then, on top of that is the political atmosphere to go along with it.

#151 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-08-06 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just a quick question ...
Have any regulations helped the people of Chicago? Baltimore? Oakland?
If not why not? How does your current legislation solve those issues, if it doesn't it really won't solve the "homicidal society" issue.
The Gilroy Shooter brought his weapon in from Nevada, nothing stopped him. No regulations, no borders ....
If people bring weapons in from out of state, who is to say they won't bring them in from out of country?
#11 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Have regulations helped? Yep. Your chances of dying from a firearm homicide are far higher in states with less restrictive gun laws. So you can point out those cities, but the death rate would be higher without stricter guns laws.

We don't have a homicidal society. We have a society where homicide is easy.

Gilroy Shooter: Good point but bad argument. It still lessens the firearm homicide rate. It's not about ending firearm homicides, just reducing the number.

Bring them in from out of country: Customs. And its still harder to get guns reducing the firearm homicide rate.

Why is your only argument that nothing will end firearm homicides so we shouldn't do anything that would lessen them? DUI laws have reduced drunk driving incidents. Does the fact that people still drive drunk mean we shouldn't have any DUI laws?

#152 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-08-06 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Require any gun owner to quote from the book of armaments, chapter 2, verses 9-21.

If they can answer, they are capable of handling themselves in any situation, and are best defense against any enemy, foreign or domestic

#153 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-06 05:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#151 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS AT 2019-08-06 12:31 PM | FLAG: Who was the 'maker' of those knives you bought. Right no the only Damascus I have in the kitchen in a Shun-Fuji www.williams-sonoma.com

Also have a custom folder [only knife I own hand made by a knifemaker].

#154 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-06 07:27 PM | Reply

If they can answer, they are capable of handling themselves in any situation, and are best defense against any enemy, foreign or domestic

#153 | Posted by Petrous

I bet the las vegas shooter could have taught you anything you wanted to know about guns, right before he slaughtered dozens of innocent people.

#155 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-06 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The NRA gave Trump 30 million to veto any gun regulations passed by the Senate.

There are your domestic terrorists who revel in the murder of children in their own classrooms.

#156 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-06 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#154 "The NRA gave Trump 30 million to veto any gun regulations passed by the Senate."

Citation needed

That's funny. As if a man could be bribed with 1/100 his net worth.

Also, a president doesn't veto or sign off on something by the Senate or the HoR. He signs or vetoes a bill once it has gotten through the entire congress. I don't know the source of the fake news you are propogating, but they obviously didn't take High School civics.

#157 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 08:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

That's funny. As if a man could be bribed with 1/100 his net worth.

Also, a president doesn't veto or sign off on something by the Senate or the HoR. He signs or vetoes a bill once it has gotten through the entire congress. I don't know the source of the fake news you are propogating, but they obviously didn't take High School civics.

#157 | Posted by goatman

haha you really bought that trump is a billionaire? He lost more money through the 90s than any other human in america.

www.vox.com

There's a sucker born every minute.

#158 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-06 08:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#158

Do you care to focus on the fake news redlightrobot presented, or do you wish to engage in condescension?

If you believe that Trupm was bribed by the Senate to veto a bill, please present evidence. (This will included the alleged bribe itself and evidence that the Constituion has changed)

Or if you have nothing continue with your worthless and childish ad hominesm.

Thank you!

#159 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 09:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bribed by the NRA, not Senate. Sorry. I look forward to your citations, speaksoftly

#160 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 09:41 PM | Reply

#158 Yes, I believe Trump is a billionaire since he is worth $3.5 billion. If you have proof to the contrary, please present it, or do what people like you do when they have no proof -- engage in ad hominem. Credible sources only like FOrbes. Ihatetrump.com doesn't count. I"ll even take liberal CNN as a valid source.

Thanks, speaksoftly!

www.forbes.com

"

#161 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 09:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Speaksoftly, did you even read your own link. It said Trump lost a billion dollars over 10 yeares. So if he started with $4 billion, he would now have t$3 billion. You didn't think about that part? Really? LOL

I'm going to quote you: There's one born every minute.

#162 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 09:59 PM | Reply

Is the ownership of assault rifles protected by the 2nd amendment?

#141 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-08-05 07:20 PM | FLAG: You need to read up on the background of the reason/purpose of the 2nd and why it comes in immediately behind Freedom Of Speech. HINT: It was never about hunting.
#150 | POSTED BY MSGT

You didn't answer my question. And to clarify. #141 was a question. Not snark or a gotcha comment.

It was directed to 101, and he answered me.

Also. Not really sure what your point was. Guns are free speech?

#163 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-06 10:03 PM | Reply

FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump
BY PETER STONE AND GREG GORDON JANUARY 18, 2018 05:00 AM
..
.. Disclosure of the Torshin investigation signals a new dimension in the 18-month-old FBI probe of Russia's interference. McClatchy reported a year ago that a multi-agency U.S. law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation into Russia's intervention, begun even before the start of the 2016 general election campaign, initially included a focus on whether the Kremlin secretly helped fund efforts to boost Trump, but little has been said about that possibility in recent months.

The extent to which the FBI has evidence of money flowing from Torshin to the NRA, or of the NRA's participation in the transfer of funds, could not be learned.

However, the NRA reported spending a record $55 million on the 2016 elections, including $30 million to support Trump – triple what the group devoted to backing Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. Most of that was money was spent by an arm of the NRA that is not required to disclose its donors.

Two people with close connections to the powerful gun lobby said its total election spending actually approached or exceeded $70 million. The reporting gap could be explained by the fact that independent groups are not required to reveal how much they spend on Internet ads or field operations, including get-out-the-vote efforts.
..

You are right, it's an ongoing FBI investigation and the sum is estimated to be around 70 million with probably more goodies bundled within that bribe alone. It's so hard to say without a shadow of doubt, but I'm certain this nothingburger has some clout. You dig?

Btw - it's good to see you!

#164 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-06 10:05 PM | Reply

#154 "The NRA gave Trump 30 million to veto any gun regulations passed by the Senate."
Citation needed
That's funny. As if a man could be bribed with 1/100 his net worth.
Also, a president doesn't veto or sign off on something by the Senate or the HoR. He signs or vetoes a bill once it has gotten through the entire congress. I don't know the source of the fake news you are propogating, but they obviously didn't take High School civics.
#157 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-06 08:22 PM | FLAG: | FUNNY: 1 | NEWSWORTHY 1

Oops, you are sort-of right - it passed the House this February and sits waiting for Senate Republican approval, which won't happen and Trump's administration has stated:

Allowing the Federal Government to restrict firearms purchases through bureaucratic delay would undermine the Second Amendment's guarantee that law-abiding citizens have an individual right to keep and bear arms. [LINKY]

I think that means he would veto, but you're the self-appointed civics guru, so you tell me.:]

#165 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-06 10:15 PM | Reply

#165 Still waiting for the citation to your claim that Trump accepted a $30,000,000 bribe from the NRA tp veto a bill.

#166 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 10:21 PM | Reply

#165 I appreciate the vote of confidence, but if I'm a civics guru because I know and understand how laws are passed, there are tens of millions of us, so that sort of dilutes my status.

#167 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 10:23 PM | Reply

#165 Still waiting for the citation to your claim that Trump accepted a $30,000,000 bribe from the NRA tp veto a bill.
#166 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-06 10:21 PM

So, you are stating that the over 30 million in ads and propagandizing for the Trump campaign have no bearing? You doubt the firearms manufacturer whistleblowers that money was funneled to Trump and clearly from Russian sources currently under federal investigation?

#168 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-06 10:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#168, um ,no. I'm stating that I want you to provide a citation to back up your claim that Trump accepted a $30,000,000 bribe from the NRA to veto gun regulations passed by the Senate as you claimed.

Can you do it or not?

#169 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 10:56 PM | Reply

#158 Yes, I believe Trump is a billionaire since he is worth $3.5 billion. If you have proof to the contrary, please present it, or do what people like you do when they have no proof -- engage in ad hominem. Credible sources only like FOrbes. Ihatetrump.com doesn't count. I"ll even take liberal CNN as a valid source.

Thanks, speaksoftly!

www.forbes.com

"

#161 | Posted by goatman

Hang on, trump himself said he had 10 billion. Are you calling him a liar?

If he wanted us to have the real number, we'd have it. The fact that he hides his finances from the nation tells you everything you need to know.

#170 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-06 11:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Come and take them" as a individual facing a tyrant said a long time ago, when that tyrant demanded his weapons.You y'all think Americans are less heroic? They equate possessing firearms as the soul indicator of being in a free society. What soyboys think does not matter.

#171 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-06 11:09 PM | Reply

#171. His name was Andrew Ponton, and I hosted a descendant of his, Joe Ponton, last May. I was in the Navy with him. He lives in Maryland and had never been to Gonzales. We went there and saw the original "come and take it" cannon. Tiny thing it is, too. Google it.

#172 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 11:11 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly said, "Are you calling him a liar?"

No, I'm calling you one because you said he wasn't one and derisively said of me for believing it, "There's one born every minute". PGUP is your friend. Don't try to deflect from you lie.

#173 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 11:12 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly said, "Hang on, trump himself said he had 10 billion. "

CItation needed. BUt I strongly suspect it's just another one of your lies. Prove me wrong.

#174 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 11:13 PM | Reply

#168, um ,no. I'm stating that I want you to provide a citation to back up your claim that Trump accepted a $30,000,000 bribe from the NRA to veto gun regulations passed by the Senate as you claimed.
Can you do it or not?
#169 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-06 10:56 PM

Here is your argument.

And I believe that the answer is in both hands. Yes, members of the Senate are bribed to not pass even background check legislation and that Trump accepted the Russian NRA monies for his campaign in return for offering to veto gun regulation legislation.

So, to clarify this passed the House and now waits in the Senate, but will never proceed because of bribed officials commanding the highest posts.

#175 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-06 11:15 PM | Reply

Yes, I believe Trump is a billionaire since he is worth $3.5 billion.

Trump himself has admitted that his claims of worth are usually made up as they're based on his perception of the worth of his "brand".

Given his poor business skills and predilection to over or under value assets depending on whether he's trying to get something (loans) or avoid something (taxes), not to mention his prolific lying, I don't trust a word he says about anything, let alone something as important to his ego as his personal worth.

#176 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-06 11:18 PM | Reply

The fact that he hides his finances from the nation tells you everything you need to know.
#170 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

No it doesn't, it just makes you fill your diaper and call your shrink.

Trump will never willingly give something away that somebody wants. He just waves it around and tells you that you can't have it.

#177 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 11:20 PM | Reply

#175. I would like to see a citation from a credible source to back up your claim that Trump accepted $30,000,000 from the NRA to veto gun rebulations the Senate passed (even though that's not how legisltation works) YOu provided a cartoon video. Fail. Maybe fifth time asking is a charm?

#178 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 11:21 PM | Reply

#176. Forbes, an institution that understands wealth and finances better than most people on the planet and figures in all the variables to make such calls say Trump is worth 3.5 billion. No offense, you're a nice guy, but yu are just another Trump hater on the internet and Forbes trumps your word. Again, no offense.

#179 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 11:23 PM | Reply

No offense, you're a nice guy, but yu are just another Trump hater on the internet and Forbes trumps your word. Again, no offense.

#179 | Posted by goatman

You're also a nice guy, but not usually so simplistic as "duh a Trump hater".

Yes, I've seen the Forbes estimate (they actually say $3.1 billion).

More than half of that is real estate holdings in NYC.

All of which I'm sure are under water, hence is prolific scams and desperation to make whatever he can when he can to skim a bit and pay off the last scam.

#180 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-06 11:27 PM | Reply

The fact that he hides his finances from the nation tells you everything you need to know.
#170 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY
No it doesn't, it just makes you fill your diaper and call your shrink.
Trump will never willingly give something away that somebody wants. He just waves it around and tells you that you can't have it.
#177 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-08-06 11:20 PM

NO, he flouts federal subpoenas and publicly claims he can't release his taxes because of an ongoing "audit". The looongest audit in history, apparently.

#181 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-06 11:30 PM | Reply

#180 Forbes calls him a billionaire. Good enough for me. They know their ----.

#182 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-06 11:30 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly said, "Hang on, trump himself said he had 10 billion. "

CItation needed. BUt I strongly suspect it's just another one of your lies. Prove me wrong.

#174 | Posted by goatman

You're wrong.

thehill.com

#183 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-06 11:32 PM | Reply

#180 Forbes calls him a billionaire. Good enough for me. They know their ----.

#182 | Posted by goatman

Trump got a lot of people to call him richer than he was BECAUSE HE'S A CON MAN.

You fall for it BECAUSE YOURE A SUCKER.

#184 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-06 11:33 PM | Reply

#180 Forbes calls him a billionaire. Good enough for me. They know their ----.

#182 | Posted by goatman

Good enough for what, though?

I don't care that he's a billionaire. He's an idiot who shouldn't be POTUS.

#185 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-06 11:35 PM | Reply

#175. I would like to see a citation from a credible source to back up your claim that Trump accepted $30,000,000 from the NRA to veto gun rebulations the Senate passed (even though that's not how legisltation works) YOu provided a cartoon video. Fail. Maybe fifth time asking is a charm?
#178 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-06 11:21 PM

I dunno about fifth charm, but I do understand how circular your argument is - you don't believe the FBI, the whistleblowers or the Russian banking asset, and that's how you roll until a verdict is made public. It should be proof of exoneration until the investigation concludes. You give Trump the benefit of the doubt because doing otherwise would smear his and your own "honor".

Protecting Trump at all costs is what matters, regardless how corrupt and morally bankrupt the rabbit hole, because that's what made him the multi-billionaire he claims he is today. What a fantasy you live! Trump appoints grifters, grafters and swamp people of every shape just because they are as corrupt as himself, yet when they are found guilty of corruption it never reflects upon the orange idol himself.

Read my link above. It won't change your view, but it clarifies that this isn't over with because there is evidence proving otherwise. Well, since it is speculation I also believe Trump doesn't use firearms and is only misinterpreting the second amendment on the behalf of the NRA "donations". 6.5 million for just one ad was a steal, btw.

#186 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-06 11:39 PM | Reply

Democrats aren't even trying.

#94 | Posted by SheepleSchism

GFY you dishonest sack of schitt.

#187 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-06 11:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Forbes admits it was conned by Trump who vastly over stated his wealth.

www.google.com

#188 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-06 11:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

GFY you dishonest sack of schitt.
#187 | POSTED BY JPW

I'm having a Larceny bourbon. cheers, JPW.

#189 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 11:48 PM | Reply

I'm having a Larceny bourbon. cheers, JPW.

#189 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Wow. A post that wasn't the Dems fault.

It's progress, I guess.

#190 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-06 11:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Oh and bourbon is gross. Too sweet.

#191 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-06 11:51 PM | Reply

It's not as sweet as my cognac. haha

#192 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 11:54 PM | Reply

I had to switch it up, I was drinking MacCallan 12 for like 3 months.

#193 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 11:55 PM | Reply

"Come and take them" as a individual facing a tyrant said a long time ago, when that tyrant demanded his weapons.You y'all think Americans are less heroic? They equate possessing firearms as the soul indicator of being in a free society. What soyboys think does not matter.
#171 | POSTED BY DOCNJO"

^
And that is why the shootings will continue.
There's no "until."
The shootings will simply continue.

You even equate the shootings with living free.

It's a death cult mentality. And pretty much only one political party embraces it. The one that doesn't like "soy boys."

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-06 11:56 PM | Reply

And pretty much only one political party embraces it. The one that doesn't like "soy boys."
#194 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Meanwhile, the "soy boys" #DoNothing. except talk about Trump

#195 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 11:58 PM | Reply

MacCallan is a good scotch. There's something off about the 12 year, though. Not sure what the flavor is it's just unpleasant for me. 15 and 18 year are very good though.

#196 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-07 12:00 AM | Reply

I got a 15 for christmas...it was very good. But it's like $150 here.

#197 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-07 12:02 AM | Reply

"Come and take them" as a individual facing a tyrant said a long time ago, when that tyrant demanded his weapons.You y'all think Americans are less heroic? They equate possessing firearms as the soul indicator of being in a free society. What soyboys think does not matter.
#171 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2019-08-06 11:09 PM

These cretins abuse the second amendment. Your crazy nutjobs are no "well-regulated militia", they are domestic terrorists plain and simple.

Soyboy meaning someone who eats soy burger instead of animal meat? That is fascinating. I too do not trust soy products - it elevates estrogen, which means nicer hair and bigger ----. But to ignore what others think based on their diet seems petty and hyper-snowflake. It's catchy, but makes you seem uninformed and ridiculous socially. My black bean patties are better than most meat burgers, btw. Does that make me a blackboy or beanboy? Sounds pretty divisive.. OOh, you can be meatboy! Or fleshhound! How about meatmouther. I'll go with that one - so, you meatmouthers really enjoy juicy hot slabs and resent imitation mouthloads. I'll bet you could court the beef and porn industry simultaneously if you tried hard enough. Cows dressed in ------- gear sporting AK's and whips.. What else can a sometimes soyboy offer?

#198 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-07 12:14 AM | Reply

I got a 15 for christmas...it was very good. But it's like $150 here.

I was given a 15 and 18 as gifts.

Both very nice.

21 year Balvenie portwood cask is also quite nice and widely available. A bit rich for my blood as a regular purchase though.

#199 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-07 12:42 AM | Reply

21 year Balvenie portwood cask is also quite nice and widely available. A bit rich for my blood as a regular purchase though.

#199 | POSTED BY JPW

My brother bought me that for my 40th birthday. It was very nice.

MacCallan is a good scotch. There's something off about the 12 year, though. Not sure what the flavor is it's just unpleasant for me. 15 and 18 year are very good though.

#196 | POSTED BY JPW

Macallan has a newer line of whiskies that are aged in both sherry AND bourbon casks. They call it "Fine oak.".

They are pretty good, especially the younger bottliings. They are nicely balanced.

The original 12 is a bit unbalanced with the sherry-wood slightly overpowering the malt resulting in a taste that slightly resembles the smell of rubber.

#200 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-07 12:55 AM | Reply

Macallan has a newer line of whiskies that are aged in both sherry AND bourbon casks. They call it "Fine oak.".

They are pretty good, especially the younger bottliings. They are nicely balanced.

I'll have to keep an eye out for them as I haven't heard of them nor tried them.

The original 12 is a bit unbalanced with the sherry-wood slightly overpowering the malt resulting in a taste that slightly resembles the smell of rubber.

Yeah I never quite could place it other than a strong, almost astringent flavor that stuck around long after you took a sip.

#201 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-07 12:57 AM | Reply

I get the 12 'sherry oak barrel', it's good and goes for $59 to $63 here in Utah.

#202 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-07 12:59 AM | Reply

I get the 12 'sherry oak barrel', it's good and goes for $59 to $63 here in Utah.
#202 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-08-07 12:59 AM

Fine liquors seem so counter-intuitive in the land of the Mormon.

This thread has evolved into understanding either side of the gun and whiskey arguments.

Let's see - rum - check, lash - check, sodomy is next fellas.

#203 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-07 01:08 AM | Reply

I'll have to keep an eye out for them as I haven't heard of them nor tried them.

It's a nice lineup but just know that the sherry is muted relative to what you are accustomed to with more traditional Macallan iterations.

Yeah I never quite could place it other than a strong, almost astringent flavor that stuck around long after you took a sip.

#201 | POSTED BY JPW A

What has been interesting is that distillers are offering more and more small-batch bottlings that are one-offs. You'll rarely find an age statement on these as the age statement can be deceptive anyway. During the '90's Springbank (Campbletown peninsula) had some whisky that had been aged in barrels for 12 years that they felt was really good but overly assertive. As whisky ages in barrels it loses alcohol as it bleeds through the wood. It's called the "Angel's dram". So, Springbank had some whisky that had been sitting in barrels for 12 years that was phenomenal but needed some taming and it was sitting at 114 proof. Instead of bringing it down to a lower proof (in this case it was 100 proof) with water, which is industry-norm, they were sitting on a lot of whisky that had been sitting in barrels for 30 years and the angels were drunk off it - this was sitting at about 86 proof. So, they vatted the barrels together and even though the bottles contained a higher percentage of 30 year aged whisky than 12 year, by industry-standard if they put an age statement on the bottle it would have to be '12-year'.

It was priced as a 12-year and I don't know that I've ever had a scotch-whisky I enjoyed more than that iteration.

#204 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-07 01:12 AM | Reply

Yeah I've noticed a lot of single batch stuff on store shelves with numbers and identifiers ect of authenticity.

I rarely buy liquor though. Drink it too infrequently for it to be worth my while.

#205 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-07 01:20 AM | Reply

I rarely buy liquor though. Drink it too infrequently for it to be worth my while.

#205 | POSTED BY JPW

You rarely drink liquor?

With your reputation I am dying to know what it is you are getting hammered with on a nightly basis if it's not liquor.

#206 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-07 01:31 AM | Reply

Shine.

I "homebrew" some nasty shine.

#207 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-07 01:41 AM | Reply

In all seriousness, when I drunkenly schitt post (which of course I've done, I'd be an idiot to deny that) it's usually a good bottle of wine or a few really nice, heavy beers. Like imperial stout heavy beers.

#208 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-07 01:55 AM | Reply

#198 | Posted by redlightrobot, You need to reread or read for the first time the "Federalist". In it is the arguments while the Constitution was being debated. Militia in the 18th century referred to every able bodied man who could carry a weapon. You might recall that the revolution started in 1775 because the Brits tried to disarm their subjects. It didn't work then, and it will not work now. Be glad that you don't live in that era, most states required every household to own a firearm and an adequate amount of ammunition. Those were the first gun laws in this country.
The first laws restricting gun ownership were to disarm black people in the south.

#209 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-07 08:56 AM | Reply

Militia in the 18th century referred to every able bodied man who could carry a weapon.

#209 | Posted by docnjo

And "arms" meant a musket that took 20 seconds to reload 1 shot.

#210 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-07 11:25 AM | Reply

And "arms" meant a musket that took 20 seconds to reload 1 shot.

#210 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

And speech was standing on the street corner yelling at the crowd up to the printing press.

#211 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-07 12:20 PM | Reply

Succinctly put: scontent.fhhr1-2.fna.fbcdn.net

#212 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-07 12:41 PM | Reply

It's just one more example of minority rule, the gold standard of American democracy.

#213 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-08-07 12:59 PM | Reply

#155 Speaks, do you have a problem with people knowing how to responsibly use guns?

Again, Require any gun owner to quote from the book of armaments, chapter 2, verses 9-21. If they can answer, they are capable of handling themselves in any situation, and are best defense against any enemy, foreign or domestic.

I'm for responsible gun ownership. Pass the test.

#214 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-07 01:30 PM | Reply

Again, Require any gun owner to quote from the book of armaments, chapter 2, verses 9-21. If they can answer, they are capable of handling themselves in any situation, and are best defense against any enemy, foreign or domestic.

I'm for responsible gun ownership. Pass the test.

#214 | Posted by Petrous

Quoting from a book doesn't prove anything.

Responsible gun owners dont need weapons of war that can kill crowds of people without reloading.

#215 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-07 01:40 PM | Reply

How can you have an opinion when you don't even know what's in the book of armaments?

Can't take you seriously when you don't have any knowledge backing up your own arguments.
Responsible gun owners do need weapons to protect their lives, their homes, and their State.
Read State Constitutions. There are quite a few that refer to the people coming to the defense of the State.

If the State needs help, they don't need the public being armed with peashooters. The people must be armed to defend a State - that requires much more firepower than you would for your home.

#216 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-08 09:44 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort