Watch the republicans try to desperately keep all discussion on terrorism and avoid all gun control talk AT ALL COSTS… Look up the Obama townhall response ((aired on pbs) when he was asked about gun control - he basically said that there’s nothing stopping someone who could be a known terror sympathizer from buying guns, this is beyond terrible/wrong
Clearly this screams an assault rifle ban and strict background checks - it’s completely insane that anyone would argue about this.
That would violate the gun filth’s constitutional right to kill other people.
There’s a concept you may have heard of, it’s called “innocent until proven guilty”. If the government thinks you should be put on a no-fly list, or should be banned from owning firearms, or should be locked up in Gitmo indefinitely, the government is supposed to prove its case first. “The FBI looked into it (and found nothing)” does not qualify.
Absolutely, and that’s where I disagree that owning an assault rifle is a “right” - that’s complete bullshit that is shoved down our throats… Lets jeopardize everyone’s safety so a bunch of dudes with small penises and their scum organization (NRA) can be happy
The best part of that article is this:
We’ve always known Trump is an idiot, but until the last few days I was sure he’d be better than Cruz (who is both smart and evil). Now, I’m beginning to wonder.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with this asshole being able to buy a semi-automatic (not an assault rifle and not a military-grade weapon). He was a guard working for the security firm G4S, so even if you managed to ban the common man from owning firearms at all, he’s the sort of person who would be granted an exemption.
I made no dumb-ass comment. I pointed out an error you repeat on this board.
Nothing dumb, there. I do not think that there would be any general confusion on the point. On the other hand, it is a legitimate question based on your persistent viewpoints on both race and language.
Lots of people get called names, here. I initially simply answered a question you posed. it was only when you got silly that I responded a bit facetiously.
As to my views on the NCLR, I have no interest in expressing them. I posted a factual answer to a question (in the spirit of The Straight Dope) and you have tried to use that as an excuse to draw me into a discussion in which I have no interest.
The key point is, what can the Trumpmeister do? No more than Obama could have.
From CNN:
**"Seeking to steal the momentum from the Clinton campaign, the Republican presumptive nominee ditched plans to make a speech castigating the former first lady and husband Bill Clinton on Monday.
Oh, this ought to be goooood.
I’m not going to make it five more months. None of us will, we’ll all be nucking futs! My mind is going, Dave. I can feel it. There is no question about it…
Like I said in the Pit, I think Trump could overplay his hand here. While some restrictions will have a certain visceral impact on those who don’t already agree with him 100%, it’s very easy to go juuuuust over the line of where most people think the government should go, and it sounds like he’s in danger of stepping over that line.
We can only hope so.
Of course he’ll overplay his hand. A skilled politician exploits a terrorist attack without looking to at least half of Americans like he’s exploiting it. Trump will leave us with no doubt.
Hands that small are easy to overplay. But he’s already going to use his natural inclination to blame the Muslims and the gays both, and demand more guns.
Trump is not anti-gay. At least know who he hates, geez.
No, but do you really think it’s particularly unlikely that many of his supporters are?
But their hands … large enough even cold and dead!
A lot of Clinton supporters are anti-gay as well.