Who will the Democratic nominee be?

[Gertdoggy]

8 minutes ago, acidhead said:

I follow her on Twitter and Facebook and she's increasingly becoming more and more vocal.  Check out this tweet from her today:

 

The President might not be but the runner up sure seems to be. 

[Space Commander Travis]

8 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

He is smart, he is well spoken, he is a patriotic former military person who has seen overseas deployment, he is kind, he is a Christian, he is quiet, modest, not narcissistic or ego driven, he is young and yet he is mature.   I don't give him good odds, but he is reasonable to listen to.

he's also made the very smart move of being gay

[Space Commander Travis]

8 hours ago, aztek said:

she is as anti gun as it gets. just look at her record, she cosponsored lots of antigun bills.https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25028

another big selling point

[Space Commander Travis]

4 hours ago, acidhead said:

I follow her on Twitter and Facebook and she's increasingly becoming more and more vocal.  Check out this tweet from her today:

 

 she really said that? Well, she seemed to believe that being a Presidential candidate certainly made you above the law didn't she, sad, deluded woman  

Edited June 4, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[skliss]

8 hours ago, acidhead said:

I follow her on Twitter and Facebook and she's increasingly becoming more and more vocal.  Check out this tweet from her today:

 

Please tell me someone called her out on this!

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

 she really said that? Well, she seemed to believe that being a Presidential candidate certainly made you above the law didn't she, sad, deluded woman  

Screw when she was a candidate, she certainly seemed to have a different opinion when she was "co-president"

[acute]

9 hours ago, acidhead said:

Hillary Clinton still controls the DNC,

Please explain how.

[Jerry Gallo]

10 hours ago, South Alabam said:

I prefer sensible gun control she has cosponsored listed on your link, rather than the NRA's absolute ZERO gun control. The NRA represents 5 million out of 44 million gun owners in America and they don't represent me.  And I am not anti second Amendment, quite the opposite.

I see nothing wrong with:

Tulsi is a cosponsor of H.Res. 367 to Establish the Select Committee on Gun Violence Prevention (2017). This resolution establishes the House Select Committee on Gun Violence Prevention to investigate and report on:

• the causes of mass shootings, (The shooter, more often than not, insane; permanently or temporarily with rage over job loss or end of relationship)
• methods to improve the federal firearms purchaser background check system, (HIPAA, although adjusted, will block the most critical piece of this, getting unlimited mental health status)
• connections between access to firearms and dangerously mentally ill individuals, (More often than not, access is often through legal, but irresponsible gun owning family members, friends or sellers)
• strengthening federal penalties for trafficking and straw purchasing of firearms, (This tends to focus on the legal seller more than the secondary, illegal seller; I think most pro-2A people support this when focused on the illegal seller only)
• closing loopholes that allow some domestic abusers continued access to firearms, (The number one impediment here is not reporting or fully disclosing the magnitude of the abuse, second is the liberally soft judiciary who refuses to lock these degenerates up)
• linkages between firearms and suicide, (It's the easiest and fastest method, but if someone wants to end their life, a gun ban will only make people discuss future bans on rope/cord, pills, or car exhaust pipes)
• gun violence's effect on public health, (Imagine the focus will be on the thousands of victims as opposed to the millions of those protected by legal, responsible gun ownership)
• the correlation between state gun violence prevention laws and the incidence of gun violence, (Places with bans are usually less safe, as only the criminal is armed more often than not)
• the importance of having reliable and accurate information on gun violence and its toll on our nation, (This requires honesty from those seeking to ban firearms, when they stop referring to AR as assault rifle or using photos of "mean-looking" guns, we can start at that moment)
• the implementation of effective gun violence prevention laws in accordance with the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and (As I see it, according to 2A, the word ban arms and keep and bear arms is clearly counter-intuitive and a violation of rights)
•  rates of gun violence in large metropolitan areas. (This would make for a great conversation between the liberal gun-ban lobby and the liberal metro area leadership. Since the left seldom calls each other out on anything, it will likely be silent, or a lot of back slapping with the sound of gunshots in the background)

Wanna be clear S. Bama, my replies in red above are not directed at you, just an attempt to save the gov't a lot of investigative dough. In every gun control conversation I've had, those in favor of more control refuse to acknowledge most of these things. Until they do and make every effort to ensure legal ownership will NEVER be infringed upon, it is they who are impeding potential reform.

The issue with this is, always has been, and always will be, the left's attempts to do an end-around on 2A by framing feel-good or "common sense" reforms with back doors in the law to inhibit legal sale and ownership. While there may only be five million official, paid members of the NRA, I would bet NRA represents all but five million in reality. It's never been an unwillingness to relent on reform, every gun owner wants 100% safe, effective ownership by all. But we realize two things...one, you cannot control or improve upon criminal firearm elements by weakening or lessening legal firearm ownership and two, given the left has seldom conceded a single honest thing, any reform will have an ulterior motive of limiting legal ownership in some capacity. In other words, if all legal firearm owners met to discuss this, we could likely tailor laws that solely dealt with the criminal element. When you bring in the passivists and those who hate all things firearm, it's guaranteed the legal owners and sellers will get pinched, by design. Their outlook, 5% less legal guns is 5% towards their goal. I think we can admit the majority of gun violence in any form is perpetrated by an illegal act, so that 5% will have no impact curbing the actual problem. In fact, stats show it will likely expand the problem for those who obey the law.

[ExpandMyMind]

Warren has a lot of interesting policy ideas.

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

every gun owner wants 100% safe, effective ownership by all.

No they dont, or at least they dont practice what they preach. I think this nation cant do anything about the spate of gun violence OR protecting the second amendment long term until the pro second amendment advocates wrap their brains around that one simple fact.

Ive been in dozens if not hundreds of homes where loaded guns are hung on walls, stuck in drawers, just left sitting on a coffee table etc. Hell how many guys do you know that keep a pistol or shotgun in their car?  What happens when that car is broken into? What happens when that home is broken into when everyone is at work?

10 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

When you bring in the passivists and those who hate all things firearm, it's guaranteed the legal owners and sellers will get pinched, by design.

Which is why it is vitally important at this point in history that pro second amendment folks recognize its time to change in order to secure the second amendment. Otherwise its simply a matter of time.

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, acute said:

Please explain how.

Money ? 

[Vorg]

11 hours ago, and then said:

I do too.  It's a melding of sight picture, breathing and trigger control   Other than THAT, they need to keep their damned emotions away from my rights.   You can't fix STUPID and you can't save idiots or sincerely broken people from themselves.  If THAT sounds brutal, just wait until some Prog government tries to do an end-run around 2A.  

I know I sound like an ass on this topic but as I've gotten older I've become far more aware of how the Progressive movement operates.  They NEVER, EVER back down or give ground.  If you try to be amenable and hope for some reciprocity you will get nothing but more demands that you give up more to make others safer. It's very similar to the situation between Israel and the Palestinians.

 I have a better plan.  It's an old German adage:  EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF AND GOD FOR US ALL.  IOW, bring back personal responsibility.  It's going to happen anyway.  It's just a matter of time before this messed up freak show the Left is pushing, collapses under its own weight.  THEN you'll find - after a brief but FIERCE exchange of opinions "by other means" - that those who remain will become self-sufficient and unbelievably polite to their neighbors.  

Her ideas are in line with a few other Democratic hopefuls on gun reform. She is one of the moderates. You should hope we don't get some of the other candidates in Office, because their ideas just might start a civil war over the Second Amendment. This is one of the reasons I choose her over the others. Remember, there was a ban on Assault weapons and magazines before and the results of whether it was effective are really unknown. https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

With a Democratic President you are pretty much going to have to face the music on some form of gun reform at some point.

And as I stated in another thread:   "As I stated last year we had 3338 gun deaths out of an estimated 270,000,000 to 310,000,000 guns OR ONE gun death per 80886 to 92869 guns. I'd say that is pretty responsible gun ownership. I can't vouch for ganstas and druggies that do the actual killings however. "

 

[Vorg]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Which is why it is vitally important at this point in history that pro second amendment folks recognize its time to change in order to secure the second amendment. Otherwise its simply a matter of time.

I agree 100%. Think of a highly Liberal loaded Supreme court and Scalis's own words: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided

[aztek]

12 hours ago, Piney said:

Same here. I was one of the many "People of Color" they failed to support during a bogus gun charge. They need to go. 

NRA is not a legal defense team for either color. it is your lawyers job. nra has no obligation to defend you nor me in court,

Edited June 4, 2019 by aztek

[aztek]

7 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

another big selling point

fortunately for us, you are not a buyer

[Dark_Grey]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Warren has a lot of interesting policy ideas.

...I'm not sure how much influence policies have on elections these days. You may be right, but Kanye West has a better chance of becoming Prez based solely on popularity. 

[ExpandMyMind]

36 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

...I'm not sure how much influence policies have on elections these days. You may be right, but Kanye West has a better chance of becoming Prez based solely on popularity. 

A lot can change between now and the primaries.

Warren and Sanders would represent the best hope for actual change, while Biden would be just another corporate shill with no morals and seemingly no actual opinion of his own outwith his donors whims. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[Jerry Gallo]

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

No they dont, or at least they dont practice what they preach. I think this nation cant do anything about the spate of gun violence OR protecting the second amendment long term until the pro second amendment advocates wrap their brains around that one simple fact.

Ive been in dozens if not hundreds of homes where loaded guns are hung on walls, stuck in drawers, just left sitting on a coffee table etc. Hell how many guys do you know that keep a pistol or shotgun in their car?  What happens when that car is broken into? What happens when that home is broken into when everyone is at work?

Which is why it is vitally important at this point in history that pro second amendment folks recognize its time to change in order to secure the second amendment. Otherwise its simply a matter of time.

You'll note that I referred to "irresponsible gun owners" in one of my bullet points. Sorry, I fail to realize that posts here are scrutinized to every letter rather than all the words as a theme. Even at 100 homes out of 44M gun owners, it's microscopic. But, I should have said "nearly" before "every" to appease you. How many of those homes you were in resulted in an issue? How many had young kids with access to them? How many did you say anything about it to the owners? It gets really old arguing anecdote and hyperbole like this, the one time I was here this happened, so let's make policy on it.

Theft from cars still represents the criminal element, how many people have coke or heroin stolen from their cars that result in an OD death? How many steal the car and crash it, killing themselves or others? It's enough of a rarity that it's inconsequential in the big picture, neither of the two things you protested from that post have resulted in mass shootings, suicides or inner city gun violence by gangs. The affects of those things can bring tragedy, but none are the real targets of legislation nor will they solve the majority of the why people crusade. 

Last thing...most important...I posted a great deal in that post that applies to folks just like you...crickets on all that. Until you realize you are as much of the problem as the pro-2A group, you'll never see reform.  

[Jerry Gallo]

1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

I agree 100%. Think of a highly Liberal loaded Supreme court and Scalis's own words: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided

I think the late honorable Judge Scalia was on point, but I can almost guarantee that any ruling he might have given on the limitations would have had to have been in and of themselves and not part of a typical back-loaded hot mess we typically see from the left in their legislation. For example, do you honestly think the left would go for more stringent background checks, LWOP for high end straw purchases, no bump stocks and no high capacity mags, in exchange they'd put it in writing that all other ownership will never be mentioned again? Does that sound like the left, to concede an inch, much less rubber stamp the true intent of 2A? I completely comprehend your views on this, in a vacuum I agree with a lot of them. But that is how that side works, using our willingness to concede to take a little more while giving nothing. Can't abide that any more, I just can't.   

[Farmer77]

20 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

You'll note that I referred to "irresponsible gun owners" in one of my bullet points. Sorry, I fail to realize that posts here are scrutinized to every letter rather than all the words as a theme. Even at 100 homes out of 44M gun owners, it's microscopic. But, I should have said "nearly" before "every" to appease you.How many of those homes you were in resulted in an issue? How many had young kids with access to them? How many did you say anything about it to the owners? It gets really old arguing anecdote and hyperbole like this, the one time I was here this happened, so let's make policy on it.

LOL you straight said 100% want safe effective  gun ownership. Its not like im being pedantic here, it was a major point you were trying to make

Some, a small percentage to be sure, but smart plans and policies are made by including the worst case scenario not eliminating it . 

20 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Last thing...most important...I posted a great deal in that post that applies to folks just like you...crickets on all that. Until you realize you are as much of the problem as the pro-2A group, you'll never see reform.  

Bro. I am pro 2nd amendment.

Thats why I made the plea I did.

"God gives us the right to have guns" isnt going to protect the second amendment from the hundreds of millions (as demographics shift) who dont own guns for much longer.

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Farmer77

[Piney]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

NRA is not a legal defense team for either color. it is your lawyers job. nra has no obligation to defend you nor me in court,

Then what good are they other than having slutty Russian spies pose with big guns and take money off of stupid people? 

 

[Jerry Gallo]

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL you straight said 100% want safe effective  gun ownership. Its not like im being pedantic here, it was a major point you were trying to make

Some, a small percentage to be sure, but smart plans and policies are made by including the worst case scenario not eliminating it . 

Bro. I am pro 2nd amendment.

Thats why I made the plea I did.

"God gives us the right to have guns" isnt going to protect the second amendment from the hundreds of millions (as demographics shift) who dont own guns for much longer.

 

And I acknowledged the mistake and yet it wasn't enough, was it? An infinitely small percentage on the whole, you'll never eliminate every worst case scenario and you know this. It's why they call them accidents. Many are preventable and those should be prosecuted if negligence is a factor, which can be done under current laws. We don't need to rewrite an amendment to solve some of the problems, which you also know. 

2A is never going away, let's get that straight. You may see some law-abiding folks made into low level criminals for not following new laws, but this country's citizens isn't collectively giving up the right to protect themselves, especially in a society where one side is doing all they can to expand or ignore the criminal element. 

As for what you are, I am well aware of what you say you are and that it doesn't square with your tone or style the majority of the time. If you are truly 2A, you wouldn't be passive on the parts I mentioned and aggressive on the other. You'd be as adamant on the rights you want to keep as those you are willing to give up. As always, the lack of consistency gives you up.  

[aztek]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

Then what good are they other than having slutty Russian spies pose with big guns and take money off of stupid people? 

 

obviously if you are forbidden to own guns, due to a felony conviction, they are no good to you,  but for me they have their purpose. 

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, aztek said:

obviously if you are forbidden to own guns, due to a felony conviction, they are no good to you,  but for me they have their purpose. 

Well, this is a stupid statement. I was Tribal Security and a PMC who pulled a legal gun on two illegal trespassers and was told. "I had no right to pull my weapon on white people". 

My charges were dismissed twice as my actions were legal then re-indicted for a 3rd time which is illegal. If that isn't a unjust case for them, I don't know what is...

 

[aztek]

12 minutes ago, Piney said:

Well, this is a stupid statement. I was Tribal Security and a PMC who pulled a legal gun on two illegal trespassers and was told. "I had no right to pull my weapon on white people". 

My charges were dismissed twice as my actions were legal then re-indicted for a 3rd time which is illegal. If that isn't a unjust case for them, I don't know what is...

 

that is your side of the story of course.   as you said number of times that you made few powerful  enemies.  maybe the case had little to do with white people.

in any case, even if everything went down as you said,  nra is not into criminal defense business. they have not helped millions of whites who had gun charges.   you did mention  you were carrying guns legally, that is what NRA does, makes sure  we have a legal right to have them,  or at least nra makes it harder for libs to take that away,

Edited June 4, 2019 by aztek