Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Hint:
We are all capable of identifying a bad act and perhaps even a good one. We, of course, were all born with a foundational understanding of a set of morals.
This, however, does not go far in answering THE question.
in 2015, there were ~350 mass shootings in this country. so far this year, there have been 133. only 3 of those (Chattanooga, San Bernadino and now Orlando) have been linked to radical islam. So while radical islam is a problem, it's a very, very, very tiny part of a major epidemic.
There are over 100 million gun owners in this country and 99.9%+ of them have managed to own guns without "mass shooting" people.
Also, lol at libtards redifining "mass shooting" to rope in regular homicides (largely drug related) with these unmotivated random acts of violence. Do you really need to inflate the numbers to air your gestapo pov? So disingenous.
in 2015, there were ~350 mass shootings in this country. so far this year, there have been 133. only 3 of those (Chattanooga, San Bernadino and now Orlando) have been linked to radical islam. So while radical islam is a problem, it's a very, very, very tiny part of a major epidemic.Good point. Let's ignore this historic mass shooting that was radical islam driven. Look at the percentages. No big deal.
Sounds like we have a real pickle here. We NEED to have background checks before ANYONE can buy an ASSAULT rifle (the scary looking ones the epa uses) to make sure MENTALLY ILL people can't get them, BUT the "background" check has to be prospective because you only become violent crazy spontaneously, and in any event the constitution, as interpreted, allows ANYONE to buy a gun whenever they want no matter their background, which is no good, because of the spontaneous nature of violent mental illness.
Fantasy land is a complex place.
Actually, the biggest motivation for having background checks isn't to make sure the mentally ill can't get guns, but to make sure people with violent criminal backgrounds can't get guns. You're really avoiding this mental health screening issue. I mean, you don't want to talk about it at all, likely because you have no clue how that would work in real life. You just heard Wayne LaPierre say it one day and thought it sounded good.
Are you rough ridin' joking? The kdhe is up in your kids' crap before they're a day old.
Sounds like we have a real pickle here. We NEED to have background checks before ANYONE can buy an ASSAULT rifle (the scary looking ones the epa uses) to make sure MENTALLY ILL people can't get them, BUT the "background" check has to be prospective because you only become violent crazy spontaneously, and in any event the constitution, as interpreted, allows ANYONE to buy a gun whenever they want no matter their background, which is no good, because of the spontaneous nature of violent mental illness.
Fantasy land is a complex place.
Yes, making the scary looking guns more illegal (super illegal?) is the only way to solve this problem. And we all know people spontaneously go crazy, no way to prevent it.
Let's create a system of laws governing the freedom of 300+ million law abiding citizens based upon the actions of a handful of murdering psychopaths. That's the rational approach.
It appears we all agree that mentally ill people should never be able to purchase a gun ever.
They should be institutionalized. A gun is one of about a thousand things they shouldn't be able to buy.
I would like to be outed as a HillRod supporter, please. I even hope she chooses Elizabeth Warren as her VP.
Can't see that, Warren doesn't like war while Hillary loves war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/us/politics/george-soros-and-other-liberal-donors-to-fund-bid-to-spur-latino-voters.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=2QuoteThis is really taking the gloves off,” said Cristóbal Alex,
Congress: this zika thing is a big deal, we should look into it
Obama: no it isn't
[Americans start getting zike]
Obama: OMG, this is a super big deal, we need to spend a bagizzillion dollars researching it
Congress: thanks to you we don't actually have any money, why don't we reallocate a reasonable amount from over here
Libtards: it's the Republicans fault people have zika, and they just oppose stuff to be mean to b.o.
who are you to judge what is a reasonable amount and what isn't? you aren't a scientist and you don't know the direct and indirect costs of doing research.
Sounds like a question for your Lord and savior b.o.
Congress: this zika thing is a big deal, we should look into it
Obama: no it isn't
[Americans start getting zike]
Obama: OMG, this is a super big deal, we need to spend a bagizzillion dollars researching it
Congress: thanks to you we don't actually have any money, why don't we reallocate a reasonable amount from over here
Libtards: it's the Republicans fault people have zika, and they just oppose stuff to be mean to b.o.
Less than half. Science Friday, last week said that the 1.9B was originally requested, senate approved 1.1B, and the house knocked that down to 600M. They took the 600M from current ebola research and are putting that toward Zika. So, we are giving up on something that pretty much all of the medical and scientific fields agree isn't over yet, and we put it toward zika, but in a way that probably won't accomplish what it needs to fast enough. Less than a third of what was thought to be needed.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Further proof that Republicans aren't pro-life
I hate paying taxes, but dang I hate.stupid kids, no government services, and potholes more; raise taxes. Sam is getting in the Obamazone.
Interesting take given the original idea of the debate was Trump's, Bernie accepted the challenge, Donald pussed out. Typical.
he is what he eats