Stardust wow....No one is denying anyone the right vote. Now if you are an illegal immigrant or "undocumented immigrant" (wonder why the left wants to use this lingo..) that is a different story.
I wasn't suggesting such that "legal" immigrants were denied anything. But Trump's claim that "3-5 million illegal immigrants voted for hillary" is horse wash.
His stance against immigration I find to be extremely hippocritical at times, and I still feel Trump is acting extremely racist in general towards Hispanics and Muslims. We are all immigrants or descended from immigrants, with the notable exception of Native Americans.
Actually there are facts to say a ton of illegal votes were cast for hillary. The story has legs. Its not all horse wash. 3- 5 million maybe not. But over 800,000k is 1/3 of that minimum total.
Stardust wow....No one is denying anyone the right vote. Now if you are an illegal immigrant or "undocumented immigrant" (wonder why the left wants to use this lingo..) that is a different story.
I wasn't suggesting such that "legal" immigrants were denied anything. But Trump's claim that "3-5 million illegal immigrants voted for hillary" is horse wash.
His stance against immigration I find to be extremely hippocritical at times, and I still feel Trump is acting extremely racist in general towards Hispanics and Muslims. We are all immigrants or descended from immigrants, with the notable exception of Native Americans.
Actually there are facts to say a ton of illegal votes were cast for hillary. The story has legs. Its not all horse wash. 3- 5 million maybe not. But over 800,000k is 1/3 of that minimum total.
and yes you were suggesting legal immigrants were being denied. Its what your whole confusing rant was about. A bunch of nothing.
"Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump."
Well played. Obama warned of fake news on the interwebs. I'm also drunk right now so everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt.
Trump passed two executive orders in secret last night, which KAC says they will not be disclosing publicly. One apparently was a ban on Muslims from seven countries, which includes Green Card holders. People are already being refused entry into the country, including to see family members in houses they have legally lived in within the US for years.
Who knows what the second EO he signed was.
Edit - Turns out Christians from these seven countries will be allowed to enter the US.
15+ years later, Bin Laden wins. Hate wins. Fear wins.
Trump passed two executive orders in secret last night, which KAC says they will not be disclosing publicly. One apparently was a ban on Muslims from seven countries, which includes Green Card holders. People are already being refused entry into the country, including to see family members in houses they have legally lived in within the US for years.
Who knows what the second EO he signed was.
Edit - Turns out Christians from these seven countries will be allowed to enter the US.
15+ years later, Bin Laden wins. Hate wins. Fear wins.
Apparently our president feels he is above the Constitution (1st Ammendment - freedom of speech and religion) by denying Muslims the right to enter our country. 98% of peoples practicing Islam do so peacefully, but the 2% of hardened radicals give the entire religion a bad name. As a Christian myself, I am aware of persecutions going on in other parts of the world, and I would expect to be free from persecution while travelling abroad. Yet the current administration feels it is okay to discriminate a minority religious group without probable cause because they may be terrorists. Why does our administration feel it is okay to ban visitors based on religious affiliation? I have heard a class action lawsuit is already being filed on behalf of two Iraqies who were detained upon arrival to the US despite having valid Passports/Visas. They were already on the plane when the executive order was passed into law. Hopefully this case goes on the fast track to the Supreme Court, whom I have confidence will rule the E.O. "Muslim ban" unconstitutional.
Trump passed two executive orders in secret last night, which KAC says they will not be disclosing publicly. One apparently was a ban on Muslims from seven countries, which includes Green Card holders. People are already being refused entry into the country, including to see family members in houses they have legally lived in within the US for years.
Who knows what the second EO he signed was.
Edit - Turns out Christians from these seven countries will be allowed to enter the US.
15+ years later, Bin Laden wins. Hate wins. Fear wins.
I'm sure the Christians will be rigorously screened with questions like "So you're really a Christian, right? Really? Promise?" And naturally they'll be asked for their Christian ID cards and other objects that would seperate real Christians from terrorists who simply say they're Christian to flout a painfully stupid executive order.
Trump passed two executive orders in secret last night, which KAC says they will not be disclosing publicly. One apparently was a ban on Muslims from seven countries, which includes Green Card holders. People are already being refused entry into the country, including to see family members in houses they have legally lived in within the US for years.
Who knows what the second EO he signed was.
Edit - Turns out Christians from these seven countries will be allowed to enter the US.
15+ years later, Bin Laden wins. Hate wins. Fear wins.
I'm sure the Christians will be rigorously screened with questions like "So you're really a Christian, right? Really? Promise?" And naturally they'll be asked for their Christian ID cards and other objects that would seperate real Christians from terrorists who simply say they're Christian to flout a painfully stupid executive order.
See how bullshittish that law is? It would be like if I visited another country also founded on religious freedom, and they forced me to renounce my Christian faith and praise Allah. I couldn't do it because that's not what I believe in.
And I totally get that many middle eastern countries punish religious minorites (Christian, Jew) as well as women, so if someone comes here for amnesty, to work, and be free of religious persecution, then this executive order denies them that. I'm not suggesting everyone have a right to free entry, but religious screening of anyone attempting to enter is completely unconstitutional.
If Trump intends to make an exemption for Christian refugees, then he should make any refugee exempt, regardless of religious affiliation.
Green card holders/LPRs coming back in are being detained, handcuffed, and asked a series of questions that includes, and I shit you not, "What do you think of Donald Trump?" Beyond even that, Trump has apparently ordered for CBP agents to IGNORE LEGAL RULINGS (Even Reagan appointed judges have ordered stays for this btw.)
The order to ignore legal rulings is, in and of itself, illegal and sufficient grounds for impeachment. But our Congress is silent right now. Apparently we're ok living in a dictatorship.
Edit - Department heads have apparenly gotten together and ordered employees to obey the rulings now. At least we have some order.
Double edit - DHS is following court orders, unclear on CBP. Reports they are resisting.
Green card holders/LPRs coming back in are being detained, handcuffed, and asked a series of questions that includes, and I shit you not, "What do you think of Donald Trump?" Beyond even that, Trump has apparently ordered for CBP agents to IGNORE LEGAL RULINGS (Even Reagan appointed judges have ordered stays for this btw.)
The order to ignore legal rulings is, in and of itself, illegal and sufficient grounds for impeachment. But our Congress is silent right now. Apparently we're ok living in a dictatorship.
He's literally been in office for not two weeks and shit is already flying in a fan factory. Ugg, this will not end well.
Remember the outrage when Obama blocked all immigrants from Iraq for 180 days? No, no outrage.
Did anyone bother to read the text? If not then you have no opinion, only what your news outlet tells you to feel.
From what I gather the countries on the list don't even hold the top 5 populations of Muslims.
Remember guys, your eyeballs are what the news lives off of. Politics are supposed to be boring and drab. The people who own these news outlets are the same people who make reality tv shows.
Switch to CSPAN or official .gov websites. I guarantee you'll be more informed and less nervous.
Remember the outrage when Obama blocked all immigrants from Iraq for 180 days? No, no outrage.
You're not talking about the action here, you're talking about the reaction.
So because nobody seemed to be outraged when Obama blocked refugees, it must be okay for other presidents to block refugees?
What your post is basically saying is: "don't let the news media fool you into believing that impeding the escape of an oppressed people is a bad thing"
Remember the outrage when Obama blocked all immigrants from Iraq for 180 days? No, no outrage.
Did anyone bother to read the text? If not then you have no opinion, only what your news outlet tells you to feel.
From what I gather the countries on the list don't even hold the top 5 populations of Muslims.
Remember guys, your eyeballs are what the news lives off of. Politics are supposed to be boring and drab. The people who own these news outlets are the same people who make reality tv shows.
Switch to CSPAN or official .gov websites. I guarantee you'll be more informed and less nervous.
Please stop with the false equivalencies, we've been hearing them for over a year now. This EO calls for the detention of Legal Permanent Residents (massive difference). I also have very little confidence this is temporary, unlike under Obama (Obama never wrote a letter promoting the ban of all Muslims, after all). If anything, I expect it to expand, especially now that an anti-semetic and Islamophobe like Steve Bannon is heading the National Security Counsel.
People who continue to pooh pooh Trump clearly are not paying attention. There are also a number of people still trying to justify their third party vote in their minds, so I guess this makes them feel better. Whatever.
As for me, I am a registered Independent and not an activist by nature, but this guy has inspired me, I will tell you that much. And, while I appreciate the advice, I don't read the Slates and Brietbarts of the world. I stick to the boring online reporting agencies like AP.
You're not talking about the action here, you're talking about the reaction.
So because nobody seemed to be outraged when Obama blocked refugees, it must be okay for other presidents to block refugees?
What your post is basically saying is: "don't let the news media fool you into believing that impeding the escape of an oppressed people is a bad thing"
What I'm saying is what I've been saying from the beginning. Issues are complex and there are about 7.5 billion different subtleties to each issue. These are war torn countries where our biggest threats are currently coming from. Allowing refugees is fine, it's the duty of any prosperous nation. But blindly accepting sheep without looking for a wolf in sheep's clothing is dangerous. Its terrible that these people are suffering. But we can't risk our people's safety either.
Do you lock your door at night? If so why? Take that analogy and scale it up to the national level.
Meh this is why I hate politics. Everyone is so polarized to one side or the other.
You're not talking about the action here, you're talking about the reaction.
So because nobody seemed to be outraged when Obama blocked refugees, it must be okay for other presidents to block refugees?
What your post is basically saying is: "don't let the news media fool you into believing that impeding the escape of an oppressed people is a bad thing"
What I'm saying is what I've been saying from the beginning. Issues are complex and there are about 7.5 billion different subtleties to each issue. These are war torn countries where our biggest threats are currently coming from. Allowing refugees is fine, it's the duty of any prosperous nation. But blindly accepting sheep without looking for a wolf in sheep's clothing is dangerous. Its terrible that these people are suffering. But we can't risk our people's safety either. Do you lock your door at night? If so why? Take that analogy and scale it up to the national level. Meh this is why I hate politics. Everyone is so polarized to one side or the other.
Who's polarized. I'm not condemning or condoning. I merely analyzed the content of your post pointed out the oversight.
Kinda like you were doing to the reactions of Trump's executive order.
You're not talking about the action here, you're talking about the reaction.
So because nobody seemed to be outraged when Obama blocked refugees, it must be okay for other presidents to block refugees?
What your post is basically saying is: "don't let the news media fool you into believing that impeding the escape of an oppressed people is a bad thing"
What I'm saying is what I've been saying from the beginning. Issues are complex and there are about 7.5 billion different subtleties to each issue. These are war torn countries where our biggest threats are currently coming from. Allowing refugees is fine, it's the duty of any prosperous nation. But blindly accepting sheep without looking for a wolf in sheep's clothing is dangerous. Its terrible that these people are suffering. But we can't risk our people's safety either. Do you lock your door at night? If so why? Take that analogy and scale it up to the national level. Meh this is why I hate politics. Everyone is so polarized to one side or the other.
Who's polarized. I'm not condemning or condoning. I merely analyzed the content of your post pointed out the oversight.
Kinda like you were doing to the reactions of Trump's executive order.
: | ... Seems you're right about that one. Sorry about that. I was actually expecting some flak and maybe put up my guard too soon. I'm gonna reflect on this a bit now.
You're not talking about the action here, you're talking about the reaction.
So because nobody seemed to be outraged when Obama blocked refugees, it must be okay for other presidents to block refugees?
What your post is basically saying is: "don't let the news media fool you into believing that impeding the escape of an oppressed people is a bad thing"
What I'm saying is what I've been saying from the beginning. Issues are complex and there are about 7.5 billion different subtleties to each issue. These are war torn countries where our biggest threats are currently coming from. Allowing refugees is fine, it's the duty of any prosperous nation. But blindly accepting sheep without looking for a wolf in sheep's clothing is dangerous. Its terrible that these people are suffering. But we can't risk our people's safety either. Do you lock your door at night? If so why? Take that analogy and scale it up to the national level. Meh this is why I hate politics. Everyone is so polarized to one side or the other.
I found your problem. Where is this assumption coming from that nobody is being screened? The issue is being presented as if there were no measures in place prior to the EO.
As for locking your door that's a pretty poor equivalent. Yes, millions of people do something easy that provides a modicum of protection while hurting nobody. Most of us don't take actions that leave many other to suffer just to gain a percieved measure of safety.
Just take out all the players, ignore the emotions, and look at this from a structural standpoint. We are barely a week in, and our president is ordering a government organization to ignore judicial decisions. If/when CBP officers continue to ignore these orders, the judge will call in the US Marshalls to arrest the CBP officers. Then the president will order the US marshalls to stand down. Then maybe the states get involved and start sending in their guys. Week two and real potential for a legit Constitutional Crisis.
Again, forget the parties and emotions involved and look at the structure. Meanwhile, the president's top advisor is a self-admitted anarchist who is on record as saying he wants to "destroy our government." I honestly tried to look at everything rationally, and thought we'd be just fine, but these first 8 days have me reshaping my opinion. We are at serious risk of becoming something akin to Russia if this continues to go down this path.
Did anyone bother to read the text? If not then you have no opinion, only what your news outlet tells you to feel.
"You don't have all the information!"
*doesn't provide any further information*
I didn't have the information at the time. Now I do though. I've read through the document and I can't find where it explicitely states Muslims, Islam, and even targeting Christians as exclusive "safe" people.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
I am not seeing a problem with this document. Sorry, once again this is something I side with Trump on. He isn't my ideal candidate but he's shaping up to be. Again, I do not blindly support him and anything that leaves a bad taste in my mouth I will personally investigate myself to inform myself and form my own actual opinion.
Also, the supposed list of countries barred from entry are Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya. These are all hostile territories where there is supposed state sponsored terrorism. This is not a ban on muslims, how? Well if it were we'd be barring the following countries where the muslim population is HIGHER.
Indonesia (205million, 87% of population)
Pakistan (178million, 96% of population)
India (172 million, 14% of population)
Bangladesh (146 million, 86% of population)
Nigeria (94 million, 45% of population)
The banned countries by population:
Iran is #6, 75 million people, 99% of population
Sudan is #10, 39 million people, 97% of Population
Iraq is #12, 31 million people, 99% of Population
Yemen is #17, 24 million people, 99% of Population
Syria is #19, 21 million people, 90% of Population
Somalia is #28, 9.2 million people, 99% of Population
Libya is #36, 6.3 million people, 97% of Population
Sourced population reports from Wikipedia so again not 100% trustworthy but still a solid source. Why is Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Afganistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and countless other high population countries not barred with high percentage of muslims?
The muslim population of Indonesia is just as many as the total combined population of the barred countries. Not a ban on muslims.
While I agree that the Dems have been embarrassing themselves for a looong time now, this stance is ridiculous. Mindless partisanship and complete loyalty to your party above all else!
For the record I own an arsenal of weapons, am pro-Life, voted mostly local Conks, and voted for Romney (a Mormon!)
Meh. I am a mix of liberal and conservative views, pro-life, pro-LGBT, and pro- gun legislation. I think all humans, including LGBT and unborn fetuses, have rights.
Gun ownership should be a privledge much like driving a car. I think people should take a firearms safety class and written and hands on tests for safe handling of firearms to get a license. Then you simply flash your gun license in order to buy or sell firearms, just like you need a license to drive a car. Just like drivers licenses have different classes, so would gun licenses. I think educating people before they can buy or possess firearms would help keep them out of the hands of idiots and lunatics. If it led to less gun crimes, that would be a positive change overall.
Economy and foreign policy wise, I don't know what the **** to believe anymore. It seems both Democrats and Republicans have a way of ****ing the bed when they get in the Oval office. That's why we desparately need a moderate candidate instead of extreme left or extreme right.
You might as well argue that the Constitution is a "privilege." All the gun fear out there is ridiculous-- I've owned a firearm for over 16 years and it hasn't jumped out and shot anyone. No classes required, figuring out how to store ammo in a separate location and how to use the safety isn't exactly rocket science.
My father learned to drive a pickup truck and a tractor by the age of 12. Presumably other people could too. That doesn't mean that nobody should be given a drivers test. If nothing else it weeds out those for whom these things apparently are rocket science.
The ability to defend oneself by force of arms is an inherent human right; if you want to get technical about it I'm sure that some kids on farms could handle rifles by age 6. Yet in my state there's already the reasonable restriction that no rifle or shotgun be sold to a person under the age of 18. You're saying that someone needs more than 18 years to figure out how to read a manual and not point the barrel at their head? Gimme me a break.
You might as well argue that the Constitution is a "privilege." All the gun fear out there is ridiculous-- I've owned a firearm for over 16 years and it hasn't jumped out and shot anyone. No classes required, figuring out how to store ammo in a separate location and how to use the safety isn't exactly rocket science.
My father learned to drive a pickup truck and a tractor by the age of 12. Presumably other people could too. That doesn't mean that nobody should be given a drivers test. If nothing else it weeds out those for whom these things apparently are rocket science.
The ability to defend oneself by force of arms is an inherent human right; if you want to get technical about it I'm sure that some kids on farms could handle rifles by age 6. Yet in my state there's already the reasonable restriction that no rifle or shotgun be sold to a person under the age of 18. You're saying that someone needs more than 18 years to figure out how to read a manual and not point the barrel at their head? Gimme me a break.
You are totally missing the point. This has nothing to do with taking guns away or denying people their right to own them at all, so i don't know why you are even bringing it up. All he said is that there should be stricter laws that require better classes and training for people, so they can learn the proper etiquette that is needed when you are owning something as lethal as a gun.
You can still shoot a gun under the age of 18 with supervision and partake in target shooting and even hunting, which is more than enough. What does a 12 year old belong owning their own gun for in your example? Self defense? Leave it to your parents who can easily legally own a gun for that and protect you and their household. When you hit 18 and become an adult and move out, then you can also own one and protect your own family, after you take the necessary classes/tests to prove you are worthy of owning one.
Not everyone has common sense. People do dumb shit with guns all the time and get themselves killed or someone else. A test just weeds out the idiots who are to dangerous to be trusted with a weapon. Just like his comparison to driving. If you take a drivers test and run red lights and crash into a utility pole, i think it is safe to say you are not ready to have a license and be out on the road with others. Sounds pretty fair to me. Prove you are not an idiot, and you can have a gun.
If you want no rules, go live off the grid somewhere.
For the record I own an arsenal of weapons, am pro-Life, voted mostly local Conks, and voted for Romney (a Mormon!)
Meh. I am a mix of liberal and conservative views, pro-life, pro-LGBT, and pro- gun legislation. I think all humans, including LGBT and unborn fetuses, have rights.
Gun ownership should be a privledge much like driving a car. I think people should take a firearms safety class and written and hands on tests for safe handling of firearms to get a license. Then you simply flash your gun license in order to buy or sell firearms, just like you need a license to drive a car. Just like drivers licenses have different classes, so would gun licenses. I think educating people before they can buy or possess firearms would help keep them out of the hands of idiots and lunatics. If it led to less gun crimes, that would be a positive change overall.
Economy and foreign policy wise, I don't know what the **** to believe anymore. It seems both Democrats and Republicans have a way of ****ing the bed when they get in the Oval office. That's why we desparately need a moderate candidate instead of extreme left or extreme right.
You might as well argue that the Constitution is a "privilege." All the gun fear out there is ridiculous-- I've owned a firearm for over 16 years and it hasn't jumped out and shot anyone. No classes required, figuring out how to store ammo in a separate location and how to use the safety isn't exactly rocket science.
My father learned to drive a pickup truck and a tractor by the age of 12. Presumably other people could too. That doesn't mean that nobody should be given a drivers test. If nothing else it weeds out those for whom these things apparently are rocket science.
The ability to defend oneself by force of arms is an inherent human right; if you want to get technical about it I'm sure that some kids on farms could handle rifles by age 6. Yet in my state there's already the reasonable restriction that no rifle or shotgun be sold to a person under the age of 18. You're saying that someone needs more than 18 years to figure out how to read a manual and not point the barrel at their head? Gimme me a break.
Do you agree with age restrictions on driving? How about alcohol? Do you think people need to be 21 to figure out how to not drink too much? Give me a break. Sounds stupid, right? It's almost as if it was phrased that way deliberately in an effort to pretend that someone was saying something they aren't. And that when, in fact, you're unintentionally making the exact same argument that I am: that a short test and licensing procedure is no real impediment to anyone responsible enough to own a gun. You say that includes you? Fine. Does it include everyone you know? Everyone they know? The one's you're not sure of, it's for them.
You act like crazy people and criminals would give a damn about the rules
you are trying to make rules that dont really help anything and fix problems that dont exist.
whens the last time criminals gave a damn about a law? Are they not going to drive to commit a crime now because they have a suspended license? Are they going to not shoot someone because oh shucks i dont have a gun license. Please.
They will get the gun they need on black market or steal it from a family member etc. Hell most crazies will pass a background check to get a gun anyway. People being irresonsible and dumb with guns isnt really an issue that needs to be addressed
You act like crazy people and criminals would give a damn about the rules
you are trying to make rules that dont really help anything and fix problems that dont exist.
whens the last time criminals gave a damn about a law? Are they not going to drive to commit a crime now because they have a suspended license? Are they going to not shoot someone because oh shucks i dont have a gun license. Please.
They will get the gun they need on black market or steal it from a family member etc. Hell most crazies will pass a background check to get a gun anyway. People being irresonsible and dumb with guns isnt really an issue that needs to be addressed
That bold part clearly shows me you know nothing about guns or some of the people that get ahold of them.
I have gone to the range for about 15 years now shooting with my family who are either military, or range officers. I have seen in my lifetime more than enough evidence to realize there are a lot of morons out there who have guns and shouldn't.
You are also bringing up a topic that is irrelevant to the discussion. Who is talking about criminals here? Obviously bad people will find guns and use them for evil. There isn't much we can do about that now that the world is saturated with weapons. I would think this is pretty obvious and doesn't need explaining in this discussion. Those people aren't who we are discussing here.
The issue is for all the people that don't lock up their guns and their kid shoots themselves with it. Or don't lock up their guns and someone steals them and does something horrible with them. The people at the range who can't understand the simple rule of when the buzzer goes off you put the gun down and don't touch it and step behind the yellow line. For the people who take pictures with unloaded guns but point them at the camera to make a good picture. The people who use their guns while under the influence of alcohol. The people who put a .44 magnum in the hands of a 90 lb woman who has never shot before because they think it is badass, sexy, or cool and she blows her head or loses an eye because of the recoil. The list is endless of peoples stupidity that i have personally witnessed and have read about.
Come on Quest, you are a person who talks about how dumb people are on like a daily basis here. Can you really not see there are dumb people who get guns and do dumb things with them? And i am not talking about criminals. I am just talking about morons.
Whether you believe it or not, these scenarios do exist and do happen, even if infrequently. And if a simple test that really is no sweat off of any gun owners back can save the lives of even a handful of people a year, then yeah, it is worth it. And as a legal gun owner, i would have no problem partaking in these tests to keep my guns.
You act like crazy people and criminals would give a damn about the rules
you are trying to make rules that dont really help anything and fix problems that dont exist.
whens the last time criminals gave a damn about a law? Are they not going to drive to commit a crime now because they have a suspended license? Are they going to not shoot someone because oh shucks i dont have a gun license. Please.
They will get the gun they need on black market or steal it from a family member etc. Hell most crazies will pass a background check to get a gun anyway. People being irresonsible and dumb with guns isnt really an issue that needs to be addressed
You're acting as if there is some species called Criminal that spawn from vats at the Criminal Factory and can only do and think of Criminal Things. The guy who holds up a liquor store may in fact be a dickweed who can't be asked to find work, or could be an alcoholic who's 10 bottles past "just one more", or could be broke for [inset reason here]. This is not excusing any of this behavior, but the whole "they'll just get up to no good some other way" is a super weak excuse and makes about as much sense as saying we should repeal all laws because there are people who won't follow them regardless. It's not like there's a group of people programmed to kill, maim, loot and destroy from birth and beep boop boop beep they must execute program.
The guy who legally owns his gun for years and then shoots his wife is a law-abiding gun owner until the moment he commits the act. The parent who leaves their handgun lying around where there kid can find it isn't a criminal but is still a shitty parent. There are plenty of reasons to have training and licensing for the American right to bear arms, which I am not against.
Comments
Stardust wow....No one is denying anyone the right vote. Now if you are an illegal immigrant or "undocumented immigrant" (wonder why the left wants to use this lingo..) that is a different story.
I wasn't suggesting such that "legal" immigrants were denied anything. But Trump's claim that "3-5 million illegal immigrants voted for hillary" is horse wash.
His stance against immigration I find to be extremely hippocritical at times, and I still feel Trump is acting extremely racist in general towards Hispanics and Muslims. We are all immigrants or descended from immigrants, with the notable exception of Native Americans.
Actually there are facts to say a ton of illegal votes were cast for hillary. The story has legs. Its not all horse wash. 3- 5 million maybe not. But over 800,000k is 1/3 of that minimum total.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
and yes you were suggesting legal immigrants were being denied. Its what your whole confusing rant was about. A bunch of nothing.
Stardust wow....No one is denying anyone the right vote. Now if you are an illegal immigrant or "undocumented immigrant" (wonder why the left wants to use this lingo..) that is a different story.
I wasn't suggesting such that "legal" immigrants were denied anything. But Trump's claim that "3-5 million illegal immigrants voted for hillary" is horse wash.
His stance against immigration I find to be extremely hippocritical at times, and I still feel Trump is acting extremely racist in general towards Hispanics and Muslims. We are all immigrants or descended from immigrants, with the notable exception of Native Americans.
Actually there are facts to say a ton of illegal votes were cast for hillary. The story has legs. Its not all horse wash. 3- 5 million maybe not. But over 800,000k is 1/3 of that minimum total.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/ne...
and yes you were suggesting legal immigrants were being denied. Its what your whole confusing rant was about. A bunch of nothing.
"Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump."
Well played. Obama warned of fake news on the interwebs. I'm also drunk right now so everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt.
Who knows what the second EO he signed was.
Edit - Turns out Christians from these seven countries will be allowed to enter the US.
15+ years later, Bin Laden wins. Hate wins. Fear wins.
Funny thing Obama does some EO's mostly rep' peeps get all bent and now trump is doing it.
So if the demo' peeps complain , reps say 'we didn't do what you guys are doing '.
I wonder if Vegas has a doomsday bet going on hehe
Trump passed two executive orders in secret last night, which KAC says they will not be disclosing publicly. One apparently was a ban on Muslims from seven countries, which includes Green Card holders. People are already being refused entry into the country, including to see family members in houses they have legally lived in within the US for years.
Who knows what the second EO he signed was.
Edit - Turns out Christians from these seven countries will be allowed to enter the US.
15+ years later, Bin Laden wins. Hate wins. Fear wins.
Apparently our president feels he is above the Constitution (1st Ammendment - freedom of speech and religion) by denying Muslims the right to enter our country. 98% of peoples practicing Islam do so peacefully, but the 2% of hardened radicals give the entire religion a bad name. As a Christian myself, I am aware of persecutions going on in other parts of the world, and I would expect to be free from persecution while travelling abroad. Yet the current administration feels it is okay to discriminate a minority religious group without probable cause because they may be terrorists. Why does our administration feel it is okay to ban visitors based on religious affiliation? I have heard a class action lawsuit is already being filed on behalf of two Iraqies who were detained upon arrival to the US despite having valid Passports/Visas. They were already on the plane when the executive order was passed into law. Hopefully this case goes on the fast track to the Supreme Court, whom I have confidence will rule the E.O. "Muslim ban" unconstitutional.
"Ya Fied"
Trump passed two executive orders in secret last night, which KAC says they will not be disclosing publicly. One apparently was a ban on Muslims from seven countries, which includes Green Card holders. People are already being refused entry into the country, including to see family members in houses they have legally lived in within the US for years.
Who knows what the second EO he signed was.
Edit - Turns out Christians from these seven countries will be allowed to enter the US.
15+ years later, Bin Laden wins. Hate wins. Fear wins.
I'm sure the Christians will be rigorously screened with questions like "So you're really a Christian, right? Really? Promise?" And naturally they'll be asked for their Christian ID cards and other objects that would seperate real Christians from terrorists who simply say they're Christian to flout a painfully stupid executive order.
Trump passed two executive orders in secret last night, which KAC says they will not be disclosing publicly. One apparently was a ban on Muslims from seven countries, which includes Green Card holders. People are already being refused entry into the country, including to see family members in houses they have legally lived in within the US for years.
Who knows what the second EO he signed was.
Edit - Turns out Christians from these seven countries will be allowed to enter the US.
15+ years later, Bin Laden wins. Hate wins. Fear wins.
I'm sure the Christians will be rigorously screened with questions like "So you're really a Christian, right? Really? Promise?" And naturally they'll be asked for their Christian ID cards and other objects that would seperate real Christians from terrorists who simply say they're Christian to flout a painfully stupid executive order.
See how bullshittish that law is? It would be like if I visited another country also founded on religious freedom, and they forced me to renounce my Christian faith and praise Allah. I couldn't do it because that's not what I believe in.
And I totally get that many middle eastern countries punish religious minorites (Christian, Jew) as well as women, so if someone comes here for amnesty, to work, and be free of religious persecution, then this executive order denies them that. I'm not suggesting everyone have a right to free entry, but religious screening of anyone attempting to enter is completely unconstitutional.
If Trump intends to make an exemption for Christian refugees, then he should make any refugee exempt, regardless of religious affiliation.
The order to ignore legal rulings is, in and of itself, illegal and sufficient grounds for impeachment. But our Congress is silent right now. Apparently we're ok living in a dictatorship.
Edit - Department heads have apparenly gotten together and ordered employees to obey the rulings now. At least we have some order.
Double edit - DHS is following court orders, unclear on CBP. Reports they are resisting.
Green card holders/LPRs coming back in are being detained, handcuffed, and asked a series of questions that includes, and I shit you not, "What do you think of Donald Trump?" Beyond even that, Trump has apparently ordered for CBP agents to IGNORE LEGAL RULINGS (Even Reagan appointed judges have ordered stays for this btw.)
The order to ignore legal rulings is, in and of itself, illegal and sufficient grounds for impeachment. But our Congress is silent right now. Apparently we're ok living in a dictatorship.
He's literally been in office for not two weeks and shit is already flying in a fan factory. Ugg, this will not end well.
Did anyone bother to read the text? If not then you have no opinion, only what your news outlet tells you to feel.
From what I gather the countries on the list don't even hold the top 5 populations of Muslims.
Remember guys, your eyeballs are what the news lives off of. Politics are supposed to be boring and drab. The people who own these news outlets are the same people who make reality tv shows.
Switch to CSPAN or official .gov websites. I guarantee you'll be more informed and less nervous.
Remember the outrage when Obama blocked all immigrants from Iraq for 180 days? No, no outrage.
You're not talking about the action here, you're talking about the reaction.
So because nobody seemed to be outraged when Obama blocked refugees, it must be okay for other presidents to block refugees?
What your post is basically saying is: "don't let the news media fool you into believing that impeding the escape of an oppressed people is a bad thing"
Remember the outrage when Obama blocked all immigrants from Iraq for 180 days? No, no outrage.
Did anyone bother to read the text? If not then you have no opinion, only what your news outlet tells you to feel.
From what I gather the countries on the list don't even hold the top 5 populations of Muslims.
Remember guys, your eyeballs are what the news lives off of. Politics are supposed to be boring and drab. The people who own these news outlets are the same people who make reality tv shows.
Switch to CSPAN or official .gov websites. I guarantee you'll be more informed and less nervous.
Please stop with the false equivalencies, we've been hearing them for over a year now. This EO calls for the detention of Legal Permanent Residents (massive difference). I also have very little confidence this is temporary, unlike under Obama (Obama never wrote a letter promoting the ban of all Muslims, after all). If anything, I expect it to expand, especially now that an anti-semetic and Islamophobe like Steve Bannon is heading the National Security Counsel.
People who continue to pooh pooh Trump clearly are not paying attention. There are also a number of people still trying to justify their third party vote in their minds, so I guess this makes them feel better. Whatever.
As for me, I am a registered Independent and not an activist by nature, but this guy has inspired me, I will tell you that much. And, while I appreciate the advice, I don't read the Slates and Brietbarts of the world. I stick to the boring online reporting agencies like AP.
You're not talking about the action here, you're talking about the reaction.
So because nobody seemed to be outraged when Obama blocked refugees, it must be okay for other presidents to block refugees?
What your post is basically saying is: "don't let the news media fool you into believing that impeding the escape of an oppressed people is a bad thing"
What I'm saying is what I've been saying from the beginning. Issues are complex and there are about 7.5 billion different subtleties to each issue. These are war torn countries where our biggest threats are currently coming from. Allowing refugees is fine, it's the duty of any prosperous nation. But blindly accepting sheep without looking for a wolf in sheep's clothing is dangerous. Its terrible that these people are suffering. But we can't risk our people's safety either.
Do you lock your door at night? If so why? Take that analogy and scale it up to the national level.
Meh this is why I hate politics. Everyone is so polarized to one side or the other.
You're not talking about the action here, you're talking about the reaction.
So because nobody seemed to be outraged when Obama blocked refugees, it must be okay for other presidents to block refugees?
What your post is basically saying is: "don't let the news media fool you into believing that impeding the escape of an oppressed people is a bad thing"
What I'm saying is what I've been saying from the beginning. Issues are complex and there are about 7.5 billion different subtleties to each issue. These are war torn countries where our biggest threats are currently coming from. Allowing refugees is fine, it's the duty of any prosperous nation. But blindly accepting sheep without looking for a wolf in sheep's clothing is dangerous. Its terrible that these people are suffering. But we can't risk our people's safety either. Do you lock your door at night? If so why? Take that analogy and scale it up to the national level. Meh this is why I hate politics. Everyone is so polarized to one side or the other.
Who's polarized. I'm not condemning or condoning. I merely analyzed the content of your post pointed out the oversight.
Kinda like you were doing to the reactions of Trump's executive order.
You're not talking about the action here, you're talking about the reaction.
So because nobody seemed to be outraged when Obama blocked refugees, it must be okay for other presidents to block refugees?
What your post is basically saying is: "don't let the news media fool you into believing that impeding the escape of an oppressed people is a bad thing"
What I'm saying is what I've been saying from the beginning. Issues are complex and there are about 7.5 billion different subtleties to each issue. These are war torn countries where our biggest threats are currently coming from. Allowing refugees is fine, it's the duty of any prosperous nation. But blindly accepting sheep without looking for a wolf in sheep's clothing is dangerous. Its terrible that these people are suffering. But we can't risk our people's safety either. Do you lock your door at night? If so why? Take that analogy and scale it up to the national level. Meh this is why I hate politics. Everyone is so polarized to one side or the other.
Who's polarized. I'm not condemning or condoning. I merely analyzed the content of your post pointed out the oversight.
Kinda like you were doing to the reactions of Trump's executive order.
: | ... Seems you're right about that one. Sorry about that. I was actually expecting some flak and maybe put up my guard too soon. I'm gonna reflect on this a bit now.
Did anyone bother to read the text? If not then you have no opinion, only what your news outlet tells you to feel.
"You don't have all the information!"
*doesn't provide any further information*
You're not talking about the action here, you're talking about the reaction.
So because nobody seemed to be outraged when Obama blocked refugees, it must be okay for other presidents to block refugees?
What your post is basically saying is: "don't let the news media fool you into believing that impeding the escape of an oppressed people is a bad thing"
What I'm saying is what I've been saying from the beginning. Issues are complex and there are about 7.5 billion different subtleties to each issue. These are war torn countries where our biggest threats are currently coming from. Allowing refugees is fine, it's the duty of any prosperous nation. But blindly accepting sheep without looking for a wolf in sheep's clothing is dangerous. Its terrible that these people are suffering. But we can't risk our people's safety either. Do you lock your door at night? If so why? Take that analogy and scale it up to the national level. Meh this is why I hate politics. Everyone is so polarized to one side or the other.
I found your problem. Where is this assumption coming from that nobody is being screened? The issue is being presented as if there were no measures in place prior to the EO.
As for locking your door that's a pretty poor equivalent. Yes, millions of people do something easy that provides a modicum of protection while hurting nobody. Most of us don't take actions that leave many other to suffer just to gain a percieved measure of safety.
Again, forget the parties and emotions involved and look at the structure. Meanwhile, the president's top advisor is a self-admitted anarchist who is on record as saying he wants to "destroy our government." I honestly tried to look at everything rationally, and thought we'd be just fine, but these first 8 days have me reshaping my opinion. We are at serious risk of becoming something akin to Russia if this continues to go down this path.
Did anyone bother to read the text? If not then you have no opinion, only what your news outlet tells you to feel.
"You don't have all the information!"
*doesn't provide any further information*
I didn't have the information at the time. Now I do though. I've read through the document and I can't find where it explicitely states Muslims, Islam, and even targeting Christians as exclusive "safe" people.
Read it for yourself: http://pastebin.com/uKZA2yXL
Furthermore, this is in the fifth paragraph.
I am not seeing a problem with this document. Sorry, once again this is something I side with Trump on. He isn't my ideal candidate but he's shaping up to be. Again, I do not blindly support him and anything that leaves a bad taste in my mouth I will personally investigate myself to inform myself and form my own actual opinion.
Also, the supposed list of countries barred from entry are Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya. These are all hostile territories where there is supposed state sponsored terrorism. This is not a ban on muslims, how? Well if it were we'd be barring the following countries where the muslim population is HIGHER.
Indonesia (205million, 87% of population)
Pakistan (178million, 96% of population)
India (172 million, 14% of population)
Bangladesh (146 million, 86% of population)
Nigeria (94 million, 45% of population)
The banned countries by population:
Iran is #6, 75 million people, 99% of population
Sudan is #10, 39 million people, 97% of Population
Iraq is #12, 31 million people, 99% of Population
Yemen is #17, 24 million people, 99% of Population
Syria is #19, 21 million people, 90% of Population
Somalia is #28, 9.2 million people, 99% of Population
Libya is #36, 6.3 million people, 97% of Population
Sourced population reports from Wikipedia so again not 100% trustworthy but still a solid source. Why is Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Afganistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and countless other high population countries not barred with high percentage of muslims?
The muslim population of Indonesia is just as many as the total combined population of the barred countries. Not a ban on muslims.
lmao
While I agree that the Dems have been embarrassing themselves for a looong time now, this stance is ridiculous. Mindless partisanship and complete loyalty to your party above all else!
For the record I own an arsenal of weapons, am pro-Life, voted mostly local Conks, and voted for Romney (a Mormon!)
Meh. I am a mix of liberal and conservative views, pro-life, pro-LGBT, and pro- gun legislation. I think all humans, including LGBT and unborn fetuses, have rights.
Gun ownership should be a privledge much like driving a car. I think people should take a firearms safety class and written and hands on tests for safe handling of firearms to get a license. Then you simply flash your gun license in order to buy or sell firearms, just like you need a license to drive a car. Just like drivers licenses have different classes, so would gun licenses. I think educating people before they can buy or possess firearms would help keep them out of the hands of idiots and lunatics. If it led to less gun crimes, that would be a positive change overall.
Economy and foreign policy wise, I don't know what the **** to believe anymore. It seems both Democrats and Republicans have a way of ****ing the bed when they get in the Oval office. That's why we desparately need a moderate candidate instead of extreme left or extreme right.
You might as well argue that the Constitution is a "privilege." All the gun fear out there is ridiculous-- I've owned a firearm for over 16 years and it hasn't jumped out and shot anyone. No classes required, figuring out how to store ammo in a separate location and how to use the safety isn't exactly rocket science.
My father learned to drive a pickup truck and a tractor by the age of 12. Presumably other people could too. That doesn't mean that nobody should be given a drivers test. If nothing else it weeds out those for whom these things apparently are rocket science.
The ability to defend oneself by force of arms is an inherent human right; if you want to get technical about it I'm sure that some kids on farms could handle rifles by age 6. Yet in my state there's already the reasonable restriction that no rifle or shotgun be sold to a person under the age of 18. You're saying that someone needs more than 18 years to figure out how to read a manual and not point the barrel at their head? Gimme me a break.
You might as well argue that the Constitution is a "privilege." All the gun fear out there is ridiculous-- I've owned a firearm for over 16 years and it hasn't jumped out and shot anyone. No classes required, figuring out how to store ammo in a separate location and how to use the safety isn't exactly rocket science.
My father learned to drive a pickup truck and a tractor by the age of 12. Presumably other people could too. That doesn't mean that nobody should be given a drivers test. If nothing else it weeds out those for whom these things apparently are rocket science.
The ability to defend oneself by force of arms is an inherent human right; if you want to get technical about it I'm sure that some kids on farms could handle rifles by age 6. Yet in my state there's already the reasonable restriction that no rifle or shotgun be sold to a person under the age of 18. You're saying that someone needs more than 18 years to figure out how to read a manual and not point the barrel at their head? Gimme me a break.
You are totally missing the point. This has nothing to do with taking guns away or denying people their right to own them at all, so i don't know why you are even bringing it up. All he said is that there should be stricter laws that require better classes and training for people, so they can learn the proper etiquette that is needed when you are owning something as lethal as a gun.
You can still shoot a gun under the age of 18 with supervision and partake in target shooting and even hunting, which is more than enough. What does a 12 year old belong owning their own gun for in your example? Self defense? Leave it to your parents who can easily legally own a gun for that and protect you and their household. When you hit 18 and become an adult and move out, then you can also own one and protect your own family, after you take the necessary classes/tests to prove you are worthy of owning one.
Not everyone has common sense. People do dumb shit with guns all the time and get themselves killed or someone else. A test just weeds out the idiots who are to dangerous to be trusted with a weapon. Just like his comparison to driving. If you take a drivers test and run red lights and crash into a utility pole, i think it is safe to say you are not ready to have a license and be out on the road with others. Sounds pretty fair to me. Prove you are not an idiot, and you can have a gun.
If you want no rules, go live off the grid somewhere.
For the record I own an arsenal of weapons, am pro-Life, voted mostly local Conks, and voted for Romney (a Mormon!)
Meh. I am a mix of liberal and conservative views, pro-life, pro-LGBT, and pro- gun legislation. I think all humans, including LGBT and unborn fetuses, have rights.
Gun ownership should be a privledge much like driving a car. I think people should take a firearms safety class and written and hands on tests for safe handling of firearms to get a license. Then you simply flash your gun license in order to buy or sell firearms, just like you need a license to drive a car. Just like drivers licenses have different classes, so would gun licenses. I think educating people before they can buy or possess firearms would help keep them out of the hands of idiots and lunatics. If it led to less gun crimes, that would be a positive change overall.
Economy and foreign policy wise, I don't know what the **** to believe anymore. It seems both Democrats and Republicans have a way of ****ing the bed when they get in the Oval office. That's why we desparately need a moderate candidate instead of extreme left or extreme right.
You might as well argue that the Constitution is a "privilege." All the gun fear out there is ridiculous-- I've owned a firearm for over 16 years and it hasn't jumped out and shot anyone. No classes required, figuring out how to store ammo in a separate location and how to use the safety isn't exactly rocket science.
My father learned to drive a pickup truck and a tractor by the age of 12. Presumably other people could too. That doesn't mean that nobody should be given a drivers test. If nothing else it weeds out those for whom these things apparently are rocket science.
The ability to defend oneself by force of arms is an inherent human right; if you want to get technical about it I'm sure that some kids on farms could handle rifles by age 6. Yet in my state there's already the reasonable restriction that no rifle or shotgun be sold to a person under the age of 18. You're saying that someone needs more than 18 years to figure out how to read a manual and not point the barrel at their head? Gimme me a break.
Do you agree with age restrictions on driving? How about alcohol? Do you think people need to be 21 to figure out how to not drink too much? Give me a break. Sounds stupid, right? It's almost as if it was phrased that way deliberately in an effort to pretend that someone was saying something they aren't. And that when, in fact, you're unintentionally making the exact same argument that I am: that a short test and licensing procedure is no real impediment to anyone responsible enough to own a gun. You say that includes you? Fine. Does it include everyone you know? Everyone they know? The one's you're not sure of, it's for them.
You act like crazy people and criminals would give a damn about the rules
you are trying to make rules that dont really help anything and fix problems that dont exist.
whens the last time criminals gave a damn about a law? Are they not going to drive to commit a crime now because they have a suspended license? Are they going to not shoot someone because oh shucks i dont have a gun license. Please.
They will get the gun they need on black market or steal it from a family member etc. Hell most crazies will pass a background check to get a gun anyway. People being irresonsible and dumb with guns isnt really an issue that needs to be addressed
^ response to magus
You act like crazy people and criminals would give a damn about the rules
you are trying to make rules that dont really help anything and fix problems that dont exist.
whens the last time criminals gave a damn about a law? Are they not going to drive to commit a crime now because they have a suspended license? Are they going to not shoot someone because oh shucks i dont have a gun license. Please.
They will get the gun they need on black market or steal it from a family member etc. Hell most crazies will pass a background check to get a gun anyway. People being irresonsible and dumb with guns isnt really an issue that needs to be addressed
That bold part clearly shows me you know nothing about guns or some of the people that get ahold of them.
I have gone to the range for about 15 years now shooting with my family who are either military, or range officers. I have seen in my lifetime more than enough evidence to realize there are a lot of morons out there who have guns and shouldn't.
You are also bringing up a topic that is irrelevant to the discussion. Who is talking about criminals here? Obviously bad people will find guns and use them for evil. There isn't much we can do about that now that the world is saturated with weapons. I would think this is pretty obvious and doesn't need explaining in this discussion. Those people aren't who we are discussing here.
The issue is for all the people that don't lock up their guns and their kid shoots themselves with it. Or don't lock up their guns and someone steals them and does something horrible with them. The people at the range who can't understand the simple rule of when the buzzer goes off you put the gun down and don't touch it and step behind the yellow line. For the people who take pictures with unloaded guns but point them at the camera to make a good picture. The people who use their guns while under the influence of alcohol. The people who put a .44 magnum in the hands of a 90 lb woman who has never shot before because they think it is badass, sexy, or cool and she blows her head or loses an eye because of the recoil. The list is endless of peoples stupidity that i have personally witnessed and have read about.
Come on Quest, you are a person who talks about how dumb people are on like a daily basis here. Can you really not see there are dumb people who get guns and do dumb things with them? And i am not talking about criminals. I am just talking about morons.
Whether you believe it or not, these scenarios do exist and do happen, even if infrequently. And if a simple test that really is no sweat off of any gun owners back can save the lives of even a handful of people a year, then yeah, it is worth it. And as a legal gun owner, i would have no problem partaking in these tests to keep my guns.
The most effective aspect of guns is the not knowing.
^ response to magus
You act like crazy people and criminals would give a damn about the rules
you are trying to make rules that dont really help anything and fix problems that dont exist.
whens the last time criminals gave a damn about a law? Are they not going to drive to commit a crime now because they have a suspended license? Are they going to not shoot someone because oh shucks i dont have a gun license. Please.
They will get the gun they need on black market or steal it from a family member etc. Hell most crazies will pass a background check to get a gun anyway. People being irresonsible and dumb with guns isnt really an issue that needs to be addressed
You're acting as if there is some species called Criminal that spawn from vats at the Criminal Factory and can only do and think of Criminal Things. The guy who holds up a liquor store may in fact be a dickweed who can't be asked to find work, or could be an alcoholic who's 10 bottles past "just one more", or could be broke for [inset reason here]. This is not excusing any of this behavior, but the whole "they'll just get up to no good some other way" is a super weak excuse and makes about as much sense as saying we should repeal all laws because there are people who won't follow them regardless. It's not like there's a group of people programmed to kill, maim, loot and destroy from birth and beep boop boop beep they must execute program.
The guy who legally owns his gun for years and then shoots his wife is a law-abiding gun owner until the moment he commits the act. The parent who leaves their handgun lying around where there kid can find it isn't a criminal but is still a shitty parent. There are plenty of reasons to have training and licensing for the American right to bear arms, which I am not against.