2016 Election Thread

[USMCTwin]

 

Compare the yearly gun deaths between France and The US.....

 

Again, I'm all for reigning in gun regulations. However, if you think terrorist attacks will stop or be less deadly I think that's incredibly naïve.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You're being a bit dishonest about what actually trying to assert, yourself there. 

 

Islam's lack of tolerance, of course, is a huge part of the problem.  No one denies that. (Again, my issue was with the statement "Looks more like terrorism to me.")  It's too often that we speak of Islam not in terms of beliefs and cultures but as people that we can identify, exclude, or snuff out.    But Islam does not have a monopoly on hate; and it is hate, and the means to act on hate that I will continue to try to steer the conversation towards.  

 

What motivates hate is important.  When it is a system with millions of adherents - it matters even more.  I doubt, if the KKK was carrying out such attacks, you'd have such difficulty identifying it for what it is.

 

I don't like lima beans, doesn't mean I hate veggies.  I can both openly identify and condemn radical Islam and love the people of the faith.  That appears to be a distinction you are incapable of and it's one shared by many of your political persuasion.  Liberalism, in general these days, seems incapable of nuance.  (It's becoming an ugly reflection of the right's same inability)

[Craig Arko]

Adults only, please.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-pZUQv8mjQ

[PseudoSABR]

 

What motivates hate is important.  When it is a system with millions of adherents - it matters even more.  I doubt, if the KKK was carrying out such attacks, you'd have such difficulty identifying it for what it is.

 

I don't like lima beans, doesn't mean I hate veggies.  I can both openly identify and condemn radical Islam and love the people of the faith.  That appears to be a distinction you are incapable of and it's one shared by many of your political persuasion.  Liberalism, in general these days, seems incapable of nuance.  (It's becoming an ugly reflection of the right's same inability)

Nuance?  I'm the one asking for nuance--sweeping generalization of 'terrorism' and 'radical Islam' obscure nuance! 

 

And seriously, quit panting me as some sort Islam-terrorist-denier.  Islam, as I just said above, is of course a sources of great intolerance and when radicalized is horribly destructive.  That said, I don't like Islam's intolerance, I don't like Christianity's intolerance, I don't like the KKK's intolerance.   I don't like any of it.  What matters is not that it's Islam or the KKK,  but rather the extent to which these hate-groups are organized and actually effectuate violence. There will always be preachers and sources of hate, but our attention should be drawn to their organization, not the premise of their hatred. 

 

A Muslim who carries out an attack acting as part of terrorist network is very different from the Muslim who acts on his own accord to enact the hate he believes Islam is calling for.  The first instance is what I'd call terrorism, the second is more complex and deserves nuance when examining what truly motivated the individual and our capacity to stop such acts.  

 

(And the notion that liberals somehow don't despise how inequitable Islamic countries are just isn't true. (God that case out of Qatar the other day, where the woman was charged with infidelity for being raped!)  The resistance to labels like "Islamic radicalism" is that it hides the ball in terms of what the public is willing to do to solve such problems.  The problem isn't sourced overseas on Arabian peninsula, it's here.  And we can do things here, and not there, to help prevent these heinous acts).

[PseudoSABR]

 

I doubt, if the KKK was carrying out such attacks, you'd have such difficulty identifying it for what it is.

I wanted to deal with this separately.  Islam did not carry out the shooting in Orlando.  Omar Mateen did, and it looks he did so on his own.  There's a difference in being motivated by Islam, and attacks being organized by Islamic organizations.  Just like there's a difference in Dylan Roof being motivated by the KKK (or racism generally) and Dylan Rook acting as part of the KKK's organization.   It's a meaningful distinction (nuance) that's getting lost in this debate.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Nuance?  I'm the one asking for nuance--sweeping generalization of 'terrorism' and 'radical Islam' obscure nuance! 

 

What obscures nuance is the idea that correctly identifying Islam as part of these situations is somehow racist.  It's not.  It's also foolish to somehow separate the organization from the organization's unifying message.  The Inquisition was Christianity.  So was the Crusades.  Terrorism in the 21st century is largely Islamic.  There is nothing wrong with saying it.

 

This man, at least in part, was motivated by his religion.  Or wrapped his justification in it.  Before this act ever happened he was investigated by the FBI for suspicion.  ISIS has called upon lone wolves to act like this because we have cut off avenues for recruits to arrive in their midst.  This is part of their playbook, San Bernadino was the same.  That this guy wasn't plugged into ISIS directly is a bit irrelevant.  The organizations are just a reflection of the real problem.  Bush made the same mistake, hell, many of us did when thinking about the middle east.  This isn't a snake you can cut the head off of, this is an idea and organizations have come and gone and will come and go....the idea, the radical, violent, intolerant set of beliefs - that's the enemy.

 

If we don't understand the motivations and ties, we don't understand how to rid ourselves of it.  We could do exactly what Trump wants an nuke ISIS out of existence and the organization you apparently believe is the end all, be all of the conversation will be destroyed.  But will the problem?  

 

The answer, simply, is no.  ISIS is living evidence of that.  No, the problem is more insidious and more difficult to redeem because it's an idea wrapped inside the power of religion.  But we have no chance of beating it if we treat it like Voldemort every time we talk about it.

[PseudoSABR]

 

What obscures nuance is the idea that correctly identifying Islam as part of these situations is somehow racist. 

Nice straw man you got there.  I certainly haven't said that (or implied it). 

 

Again the issue I took was definitively categorizing the act as terrorism as opposed to being motivated by homophobia/homosexual-desire.  (It's both, and unlike foreign-motivated terrorist attacks).  For like the fifth time, let me say it again, Islam is obviously part his motivations, and largely radical Islam is bigoted and dangerous.   

[TheLeviathan]

 

Nice straw man you got there.  I certainly haven't said that (or implied it). 

 

Again the issue I took was definitively categorizing the act as terrorism as opposed to being motivated by homophobia/homosexual-desire.  (It's both, and unlike foreign-motivated terrorist attacks).  For like the fifth time, let me say it again, Islam is obviously part his motivations, and largely radical Islam is bigoted and dangerous.   

 

You questioned why the "why?" was important at all.  It's important because that "why?" is why so much of this is happening here and around the world.  Confronting and changing that "why?" for the better is going to be an ongoing struggle for the rest of our lives.  

 

To go back to your original post - "preventing these tragedies" is absolutely tied in with why they are happening.  And the solution, ultimately, will be helping with why it's happening as well.  

[PseudoSABR]

In an effort to change the conservation, there's this.

 

A new Bloomberg poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 49 percent to 37 percent.

[Mike Sixel]

I stand with Ronald Reagan on this.

 

People don't need "machine guns". it is reasonable to pass laws restricting ownership of certain weapons, and for certain people. He signed several......he also lobbied on behalf of the "brady bill", correct?

[PseudoSABR]

 

You questioned why the "why?" was important at all.  It's important because that "why?" is why so much of this is happening here and around the world.  Confronting and changing that "why?" for the better is going to be an ongoing struggle for the rest of our lives.  

 

To go back to your original post - "preventing these tragedies" is absolutely tied in with why they are happening.  And the solution, ultimately, will be helping with why it's happening as well.  

Hate will come under a different banner before we know it.   Yes, Islam, as a religion and a political tool, produces vile rhetoric that motivates people to atrocities, but I don't think focusing on what's wrong with Islam really gets us much of any where in terms of practical solutions to preventing tragedies like this.  

[DaveW]

Again, I'm all for reigning in gun regulations. However, if you think terrorist attacks will stop or be less deadly I think that's incredibly naïve.

Lone gunmen attacks (which almost every mass shooting in US history has been) would certainly be less deadly.

 

This wasn't some highly coordinated terroist attack. It was a lone gunmen, yes he was a "terroist" by definition. But it was a lone gunman! If he didn't have an AR 15 he certainly would have killed significantly less people.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Hate will come under a different banner before we know it.   Yes, Islam, as a religion and a political tool, produces vile rhetoric that motivates people to atrocities, but I don't think focusing on what's wrong with Islam really gets us much of any where in terms of practical solutions to preventing tragedies like this.  

 

We need not have one solution.  Again, nuance and diversity of thought here.  Is it not possible to both fight the scourge of radical Islam while also fighting to outlaw large magazine clips?  Or to campaign heavily against popular opinion of guns?

 

This is not going to be a war fought on one front so picking and choosing which ones are important are only going to ignore others that are.  We need to look at it with open eyes - why are people doing this?  In this case, and in Paris and many other places, it is a combination of accessibility of military grade weaponry, Islam, and hate.  Taking apart one from the others doesn't solve the problem.  It just makes you feel like you are.

[Steve J]

 

First, speaking of inane - the idea that "Democracy" is buying politicians is about as inane as I can imagine.  Vote what you want.  Having an iron grip on Congress because you are an extremely powerful lobby?  I don't support that no matter what the issue is.  And it sure as hell ain't Democracy.

 

 

 

You understand that you cannot legally "buy politicians"?  This invective of yours describing the relationship between advocacy groups and the politicians that support them shows a disdain for Democracy, not an understanding of it.  The NRA is not so influential because it slips cash into the personal pockets of elected and administrative officials.  It is influential primarily because it's membership consists of many, many people and there are many more not among their membership that agree with them on these issues.

 

 

 

The 2nd amendment clearly states that arms are there for militia purposes which are clearly to be regulated by the government.  Especially since the right is stated as being contingent upon the need for a militia.  Which isn't some re-framing, when the Constitution was written the intention of the amendment was to allow individual white men to own a gun so that, when called on, they could come armed to protect the country.  It was never about inscribing an individual right - that came about through Constitutional interpretation later.  You should read this, it includes detailed notes from Madison and other framers that basically says the current interpretation is a complete load of bull. 

And that bull and the inability to acknowledge that you don't have to be The Punisher is why these debates happen.  The NRA can't even suggest compromises that might, you know, prevent no-fly potential terrorists from having conceal and carry permits.  There are plenty of mechanisms for it.

He was born in New York long before 9/11 - so no, it wouldnt' have worked.  It also does nothing for the white kid who stole his mother's guns to massacre six year olds.

And yes, the second is flimsy for a variety of reasons - most notably for the fact that even if you did it, the effects would be impossible to measure and take a generation of people not witnessing it to probably even notice.

You sacrifice your free speech every day by accepting a whole host of speech you aren't allowed.  You sacrifice your unadulterated right to freedom at someone else's nose every day by accepting where your rights end and their rights begin.  Hell, to be specific, you've accepted bazookas shouldn't be allowed for the betterment of society.  And most importantly, among those "inalienable rights" is your pursuit of happiness - which again MUST end where it infringes on others.  Gun culture is not only infringing on the happiness of others, it's taking the most inalienable rights of all - life.

As for this issue, let's be clear about your contribution so far -  you're going to sit here and say "Nope, not guns!" but offer no solutions?  And when asked, you just respond with lame devil's advocate hypotheticals?  You're not doing yourself any favors being taken seriously.  Cmon - actual solutions.  Not hypotheticals.

 

1) The People's Right to Bear Arms is clearly not predicated on any involvement in the Militia by the very text of the Amendment. Else, what does "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean?

 

2) You are a 100% Wrong that "The People" mention of the second Amendment was intended to infer a collective right rather than an individual one.  This is a pet idea that fails because it conflicts with the greater context of the Constitution where "The People" is held in most every other case to be an individual freedom. Historically, the Right was only considered collective starting in the 20th Century, and then corrected.  Before that it was all but universally held to be an individual one.

 

3) Re: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X

 

Have you read this book yourself?

 

4) I"m pretty sure it's not just the NRA that opposes removal of Constitutional Rights based on suspicion. I find it alarming that there are multiple liberals in this board that are seriously advocating this.

 

5) So, if we had banned certain ideologies prior to 9/11 during this attacker's formative years, it would have had no chance of preventing this atrocity?  That is my point now and I think it would have had a chance, as bad as idea as it would have been.

 

6) "My Contributions so far"...did I actually accept that we shouldn't have bazookas?  

 

And my solution is this: Once again, every freedom bears a social cost.  You may not like this cost but I accept it.  Disagreeing with what is being said in no way requires me to come up with an alternative, though focusing on mental health issues and availability of services is one possibility.  

[Bark's Lounge]

Some will like this, some won't.

 

I have been a big fan of Maajid Nawaz for the last couple of years, this is an article he wrote in the last few days.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-are-muslims.html

[TheLeviathan]

 

1) The People's Right to Bear Arms is clearly not predicated on any involvement in the Militia by the very text of the Amendment. Else, what does "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean?

 

2) You are a 100% Wrong that "The People" mention of the second Amendment was intended to infer a collective right rather than an individual one.  This is a pet idea that fails because it conflicts with the greater context of the Constitution where "The People" is held in most every other case to be an individual freedom. Historically, the Right was only considered collective starting in the 20th Century, and then corrected.  Before that it was all but universally held to be an individual one.

 

3) Re: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X

 

Have you read this book yourself?

 

4) I"m pretty sure it's not just the NRA that opposes removal of Constitutional Rights based on suspicion. I find it alarming that there are multiple liberals in this board that are seriously advocating this.

 

5) So, if we had banned certain ideologies prior to 9/11 during this attacker's formative years, it would have had no chance of preventing this atrocity?  That is my point now and I think it would have had a chance, as bad as idea as it would have been.

 

6) "My Contributions so far"...did I actually accept that we shouldn't have bazookas?  

 

And my solution is this: Once again, every freedom bears a social cost.  You may not like this cost but I accept it.  Disagreeing with what is being said in no way requires me to come up with an alternative, though focusing on mental health issues and availability of services is one possibility.  

 

1) Lobbyists, for all intents and purposes, do buy politicians.  The NRA has a large cross section of Congress at their beck and call.  It's among several lobbies that are far too powerful.  So yes - bought.

 

2)  No, I'm not wrong.  The book I cited absolutely has a balanced approach, some of the research favoring interpretations, others not.  But the book makes plainly clear that Madison's notes on guns were exclusively about a militia, not individual rights.  This may be of interest.  Interpretation here is very much up for debate, but Madison's notes in the book I cited merely talk about the milita, not an individual right.  

 

5) No, it would've had no chance because this guy was 15 at 9/11.  Was your plan to deport him and think that's the end of it?  I mean, that's just comically ill-thought.

 

6) No freedom is worth a nightclub full of dead people.  Or a classroom full of dead six year olds.  Especially not when that freedom simply needs to be rolled back slightly, not eliminated.  That you feel the need to have a high caliber, high magazine fire arm and shrug at the slaughter of 1st graders should tell you something about your priorities in life.

 

And mental health is a cute thing we toss around with this but let's be real clear: we talk about "this guy had mental issues!" after the fact.  A tiny fraction of the people who commit these have any documented mental health issues.  And, even if they did - you and your lobby do almost nothing to pass legislation to those with demonstrated mental health issues from getting a gun.  And, even worse, stigmatizes mental health as the catch all for anything evil.

 

But if I were you, I'd just concentrate on the fact that your "I gotta have me a machine gun, if a first grade classroom has to be a bloodbath...so be it" priority may be a touch off.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Some will like this, some won't.

 

I have been a big fan of Maajid Nawaz for the last couple of years, this is an article he wrote in the last few days.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-are-muslims.html

 

God damn that was some fine writing.  Bravo and thank you for posting.

[Craig Arko]

Some will like this, some won't.

 

I have been a big fan of Maajid Nawaz for the last couple of years, this is an article he wrote in the last few days.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-are-muslims.html

And I've been a big fan of the Dalai Lama for a very long time.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dalai-lama-must-not-see-muslims-terrorists-orlando-180533780.html

[Steve J]

 

That's not what I said. I said that for most gun owners, their privilege and freedom would be unaffected.  

 

Some ideas that shouldn't be controversial:

1) Extended background checks with mandatory waiting period.

2) Close the gun show loop hole.  

3) Limits/ban on high ammunition magazines.

4) Prohibited possession for people on the no-fly list (or for national security purposes).

 

Some ideas that are controversial but I think will be good anyway:

1) Mandatory licensing for gunowners that includes safety training and anger management courses.

2) Ban/limitation on semi-automatic (AR-15 style) weapons that can be easily altered to become fully automatic. 

3) Ban/limitation on body armor.

4) Take away the immunity of the gun industry.  Make them liable if they negligently manufacture and sell weapons to criminals. 

5) Limitation on arsenals. I don't think this could work without registry, but there's no logic in letting individuals stock pile.

6) Super high tax on ammunition. (Gun rangers, etc. would be exempt from the tax). 

7) Prohibited possession for people who have diagnosed mental illness connected to violence. 

8) Buy back program for semi-automatic weapons and hand guns at original cost (or maybe an additional 10%, provided there are means to prevent people from gaming the system for profit).

 

This is just a start and off the top of my head, and there's plenty of room for negotiation.  

 

For most gunowners, their actual ownership of guns would be unaffected by such changes.  

 

Thanks for the list, Psuedo. Here are my thoughts.

 

1) This is cool but I'm pretty sure every gun dealer and manufacturer has to do this already against an FBI database when selling a gun.  IIRC, there can be up to a three day waiting period already.

 

2) Please explain to me "the gun show loophole" and how it works?  I believe I know what is being inferred by I want to be certain what you mean.  Gun dealers must be licensed and even at Gun Show, criminal background checks must be performed just as if it were in their store.

 

3) Given how easy and quick it is to change magazines, would this really be effective?

 

4) Due process problems all over this

 

-----------------------------

 

1) Offhand, I think this should be regular curriculum and not just for gun owners.  

 

2) Is the semi to fully conversion really a problem?  I don't recall the last time an illegal conversion was used in a crime?  I don' t think it's mechanically easy to do anyways (I could be wrong)...

 

4)  I thought they already were liable if they sold to criminals? 

 

5)  Disagree.  what would be the purpose?  the Batman killer, Charleston shooter, and this new nut wouldn't have needed to bring an arsenal with them to do the damage they did.

 

6)   In my view taxes should be for raising revenue, not for the expressed purpose of regulating anything.  Wouldn't anything to stop people who want to kill others.  Would just be to thumb noses at people who want to become practiced at their weapons.  Civil liberties groups would say this would also cause a disparate impact on minorities.

 

7) How do we overcome due process?

 

8) Any State should be free to pursue this.

[Badsmerf]

So what you're saying is you don't really have a plan, but don't want anything to change? Please tell me you aren't simply deferring all the shooting in America to the cost of freedom, because that is how it came across.

 

Also, you shouldn't consider those of us who disagree with you all liberal, because we're not. A few are, but a good number of us disassociated with the gop years ago. We've been battling about policy for over a decade now. I'm glad you've joined the conversion. It's fun to have different viewpoints.

[Steve J]

 

So what you're saying is you don't really have a plan, but don't want anything to change? Please tell me you aren't simply deferring all the shooting in America to the cost of freedom, because that is how it came across.

 

 

I essentially am as it pertains to the Second Amendment (and my understanding of it) being on the chopping block.  it may sound crass, but that is not my intent.  

 

Do we need to pour more money into mental health issues?  that may be the answer

 

 

 

Also, you shouldn't consider those of us who disagree with you all liberal, because we're not. A few are, but a good number of us disassociated with the gop years ago. We've been battling about policy for over a decade now. I'm glad you've joined the conversion. It's fun to have different viewpoints.

 

So noted.  And thanks for the encouragement!!

[TheLeviathan]

 

And I've been a big fan of the Dalai Lama for a very long time.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dalai-lama-must-not-see-muslims-terrorists-orlando-180533780.html

 

This guy being a Muslim terrorist does not equal all Muslims are terrorists.   That's illogical and asinine to equate.

 

 It's apparent the Dalai Lama also lacks the ability to have nuance.  Good guy, bad thinking.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I essentially am as it pertains to the Second Amendment (and my understanding of it) being on the chopping block.  it may sound crass, but that is not my intent.  

 

Do we need to pour more money into mental health issues?  that may be the answer

 

No one wants to chop it.  A healthy pruning seems in order.

 

Mental health could use a pouring of money, but not for this reason.  This issue has very little to do with what government considers "mental health".  Most of these shooters have no track record of mental health or even violence until the mass murders.  So while this would be great for those truly in need of mental health, those same people are really of little risk to the populace in general.  They've become a convenient talking point/scapegoat for the left and the right who are seeking to explain things.  But it isn't accurate.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Thanks for the list, Pseudo. Here are my thoughts.

You're welcome, and thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I'll try to address your points, but I want do so comprehensively as some thematic issues arise in your responses.  (Late edit: Let it be known, I still responded piecemeal even though I endeavored not to.)

 

I think there's some misconceptions about the affect/power of the Constitution in terms of whether it forbids government limitations or bans of fundamental rights.  The Supreme Court has held that the State can pass laws that implicate fundamental rights so long as there is a 'compelling' government interest and the law is 'narrowly tailored', the Court has often applied an additional step in that the law could be accomplished by no alternative means.  In legal vernacular they call this strict scrutiny--but you can already see the wiggle room.  It wasn't until 2003 (i.e. it took two hundred years to finally figure out what the second amendment was about), that the Supreme Court actually found a fundamental right withing the second amendment (Heller v. DC), and there the fundamental right was self-defense within one's home by firearm, so a law banning handguns in DC was declared unconstitutional.  Up until then gun control laws, including the Brady Bill which in part banned 'assault weapons', were upheld as constitutional.   

 

The point is that gun control has always survived second amendment scrutiny.  Let's just put the unconstitutional argument to bed, because it just isn't true in terms how the Court has interpreted the law, even at it's most pro-gun-right.

 

Due process is essential in my opinion.  But the American government is afforded many exceptions to our best efforts at due process including national security.   As I've hinted at before, federal law already makes prohibited possessors of many different classes of people, from mental health to domestic violence issues. (See 18 USC 922(g)) .  If our government can somehow imprison people without trial in Guantanamo Bay for national security purposes, you can be certain the courts will rubber stamp denying firearms to people for national security purposes.  The extent of which would be a legal question, but one with much rope for the Feds.

 

Background checks for firearms can be completed within hours, evidently, and the three days is a maximum waiting period not the minimum; there's no investigation, just a database check, I'm guessing.  The gun-show-loop-hole is all about the secondary market, the law provides, "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms."  Gun-show sellers take advantage in that they buy from wholesale, who have a Federal Firearms License, and sell it to consumers at gun shows as 'private citizens.'  There is no obligation to background check in such sales.  (Of course, the prohibition of private sales of firearms could never be enforced locally, but on an organized scale, like a public conference/gun show, enforcement is certainly possible.). 

 

The gun industry has immunity to several vicarious liabilities based on negligence. (See 15 USC 7503(5)).  Basically, they are immune as long as they work through third parties who then sell to criminals, which is how most industries work anyway (the separation between manufacturing, distribution, and sales. 

 

On arsenals and magazines, we can agree that any second gained might be another life, and such limitations are legally possible.  I'm not beholden to them, but the are worth exploring.  

 

On modification and assault weapons, whatever limits the capacity to easily dispense bullets, whether it's a type of firearm or modification part, I'm for limiting/banning.

 

Outside our ideal, a tax on ammunition would signal the weight of the responsibility.  And although, I appreciate the regressive nature of any tax borne upon the poor, they would be unfortunately captured in such a scheme, as they always are when we revert to sales taxes, but a tax does deter, it is a reality, and thus a tool we must consider.

 

I was really glad to see you're down for a buy back, but of course how could we pay for such a thing.  Dare I say a gun tax... 

 

In any case, I hope you see there's room to come to some kind of legislative action without sacrificing your ideals or compromising the Constitution. 

[twinsnorth49]

 

 

And my solution is this: Once again, every freedom bears a social cost.  You may not like this cost but I accept it.  Disagreeing with what is being said in no way requires me to come up with an alternative, though focusing on mental health issues and availability of services is one possibility.  

Hey, collateral damage abroad, collateral damage at home. Keep on keeping on America, seems to be working out well for you so far.

 

 

[USMCTwin]

Trump tweeted that he is going to meet with the NRA about not letting suspected terrorists and people on the no fly list buy guns. Not sure if he is pandering, but totally seems possible he could change his mind and decide anyone who wants to restrict guns is evil.

 

If this is one step we can take from the situation I think that would be a good start, whether or not it would have prevented this tragedy.

[ashbury]

Thanks for the list, Psuedo. Here are my thoughts.

 

1) This is cool but .

You're welcome, and thanks for your thoughtful reply. 

Moderator note: Not every mod note is scolding in tone. I appreciate the improved tone throughout this discussion. Thanks!

[PseudoSABR]

 

Trump tweeted that he is going to meet with the NRA about not letting suspected terrorists and people on the no fly list buy guns. Not sure if he is pandering, but totally seems possible he could change his mind and decide anyone who wants to restrict guns is evil.

 

If this is one step we can take from the situation I think that would be a good start, whether or not it would have prevented this tragedy.

I saw that. I don't like giving Trump kudos but if he can get the NRA to the table so be it.  The NRA has agreed to meet with him...

 

[nicksaviking]

 

I saw that. I don't like giving Trump kudos but if he can get the NRA to the table so be it.  The NRA has agreed to meet with him...

 

Yeah, agree. I don't care about Trump's motives if the end result is basically a stick in the eye to the NRA.

 

Besides, it's not going to be anti-gun folks who end up changing this tide, it will be pro-gun people who have finally had enough of this faux 2nd Amendment BS.

[Mike Sixel]

a real life filibuster. Who woulda thunk it?

 

If the right is so sure they are right, why are they afraid to vote on this, exactly?