Yep. For instance I think mandatory training and licensing is completely reasonable since a TON of people don't get taught by their parents anymore. Yet the Democrats would use that as a bludgeon to strip gun rights away from people en masse, and thus I wouldn't be able to support such a scheme in practice.
I'm a "gun nut" and I support, in principle, a number of new gun laws. However I'm also aware that those laws would be bastardized by the Democrats and thus wouldn't support them.
And if the establishment actively excludes people that disagree with a narrative, what then? A liberal government pushes deeply flawed through the CDC and then trumpets it as "proof" that they need to pass all the laws. The people get scared because guys in white coats are telling them to be scared and the laws get passed, then we lose rights with little to no benefit.
The Dickey Amendment can stay until the Democrats stop attacking gun rights and start attacking criminals.
Fun fact: The M-16 is dramatically less powerful than the gun it replaced in US service. It's also dramatically less powerful than a typical hunting rifle.
How do you define "isturbed individual"? Who gets to decide? What constraints are there on expanding that definition arbitrarily? What prevents someone from arbitrarily labelling as many people as possible "disturbed" because they don't like the idea of gun rights?
Looney tunes? Nah. Utterly misinformed and pants-shittingly terrified? Absolutely. As a liberal with liberal friends I can tell you that the amount of complete bullshit that people believe about guns is extremely vast. Liberals aren't quite as bad as what most pro-gunners think, but they're pretty close, because even if they don't constantly demand shitty laws, they tend to approve of them when they come up. The end result is the same.
Also as others have stated the "But flintlocks!!!" argument is both stupid and extremely dangerous. Hope you don't mind the 4th Amendment not applying to your computer.
Why not have a second PIN that opens a sanitized, but seemingly fully normal, home page? Missing a few critical apps, or having versions signed into a different account.
I would bet money that if the election was held again today that Clinton would win. Trump is doing some things that his supporters want, but he's also completely flipped on some of his promises (remember "drain the swamp"?) and pissed off a lot of people in the middle who voted for him. If his policies are home runs then he might survive, but I very much doubt they will be, moderate successes are possible, but they will likely come with serious downsides that will leave him open to attack quite easily.
Only time will tell, but I wouldn't put any money on Trump being the Republican nominee in 2020.
That's more or less the idea with Trump I'm sure. The Republicans will let him hang himself, then when he finally loses the majority of his support from the fringe they'll chuck his corpse and slide Pence into the Oval Office.
It's worth noting that for most of that charts timeframe EOs were used for much more minor things than they are used for today. Or at least that's my understanding. That changed with FDR IIRC, which would explain why the sudden cliff there, with expanded power came expanded responsibility.
They kinda do. They didn't USE to do that, but they have been assumed to hold that power for a while now. Executive Orders were originally intended for minor duties that the prez could implement without needing to bother Congress. I think it was FDR that got them expanded so that he could manage the Depression better, then every president since has expanded their scope, because they can.
Because having an international military force controlled by China and Russia (who both hold permanent seats on the Security Council in case you've forgotten) is a wonderful idea.
What you're talking about is what the conspiracy theorists are talking about when they blabber about the New World Order. Ponder the idea of making conspiracy theories true for a moment.
Japan had literally no chance of winning the war once the US decided to fight. It was only a question of WHEN they would lose, not if. They even recognized that and performed Pearl Harbor in the hopes of making the US give up early, as that was the only plausible way they would come out ahead. Rejecting the German scientists would have cost us a lot of post-war gains, but wouldn't have affected the war that much.
Slashdot Mirror
Other countries have placed blanket restrictions on everyone.
Yep. For instance I think mandatory training and licensing is completely reasonable since a TON of people don't get taught by their parents anymore. Yet the Democrats would use that as a bludgeon to strip gun rights away from people en masse, and thus I wouldn't be able to support such a scheme in practice.
If you knew then why didn't you say? Are you just that desperate for human interaction? :P
For the Left literally every gun law is not only "reasonable" but essential.
For the right only laws that primarily effect criminals are reasonable, and not all of them.
Which is why it says "the people" have a right, of course. Because that makes sense.
I'm a "gun nut" and I support, in principle, a number of new gun laws. However I'm also aware that those laws would be bastardized by the Democrats and thus wouldn't support them.
And if the establishment actively excludes people that disagree with a narrative, what then? A liberal government pushes deeply flawed through the CDC and then trumpets it as "proof" that they need to pass all the laws. The people get scared because guys in white coats are telling them to be scared and the laws get passed, then we lose rights with little to no benefit.
The Dickey Amendment can stay until the Democrats stop attacking gun rights and start attacking criminals.
Fun fact: The M-16 is dramatically less powerful than the gun it replaced in US service. It's also dramatically less powerful than a typical hunting rifle.
How do you define "isturbed individual"? Who gets to decide? What constraints are there on expanding that definition arbitrarily? What prevents someone from arbitrarily labelling as many people as possible "disturbed" because they don't like the idea of gun rights?
Is your handgun locked inside? Because that's the one criminals would actually want.
"Responsibility"? Care to elaborate?
Reasonable to people that know nothing about statistics maybe.
Looney tunes? Nah. Utterly misinformed and pants-shittingly terrified? Absolutely. As a liberal with liberal friends I can tell you that the amount of complete bullshit that people believe about guns is extremely vast. Liberals aren't quite as bad as what most pro-gunners think, but they're pretty close, because even if they don't constantly demand shitty laws, they tend to approve of them when they come up. The end result is the same.
Also as others have stated the "But flintlocks!!!" argument is both stupid and extremely dangerous. Hope you don't mind the 4th Amendment not applying to your computer.
Why not have a second PIN that opens a sanitized, but seemingly fully normal, home page? Missing a few critical apps, or having versions signed into a different account.
I would bet money that if the election was held again today that Clinton would win. Trump is doing some things that his supporters want, but he's also completely flipped on some of his promises (remember "drain the swamp"?) and pissed off a lot of people in the middle who voted for him. If his policies are home runs then he might survive, but I very much doubt they will be, moderate successes are possible, but they will likely come with serious downsides that will leave him open to attack quite easily.
Only time will tell, but I wouldn't put any money on Trump being the Republican nominee in 2020.
The problem is that every time I give love they call the police :(
That's more or less the idea with Trump I'm sure. The Republicans will let him hang himself, then when he finally loses the majority of his support from the fringe they'll chuck his corpse and slide Pence into the Oval Office.
You are insufficiently outraged, you must be one of those At-Right racista!!!!!! PDP must be skinned alive for this!!!!!
That's sarcasm if you can't tell.
The victims are their children, who have no choice in the matter.
Can you show me a military historian that would argue that Japan had any real chance of straight up winning the war?
So IT'S ON!
I'll get the popcorn.
It's worth noting that for most of that charts timeframe EOs were used for much more minor things than they are used for today. Or at least that's my understanding. That changed with FDR IIRC, which would explain why the sudden cliff there, with expanded power came expanded responsibility.
They kinda do. They didn't USE to do that, but they have been assumed to hold that power for a while now. Executive Orders were originally intended for minor duties that the prez could implement without needing to bother Congress. I think it was FDR that got them expanded so that he could manage the Depression better, then every president since has expanded their scope, because they can.
Because having an international military force controlled by China and Russia (who both hold permanent seats on the Security Council in case you've forgotten) is a wonderful idea.
What you're talking about is what the conspiracy theorists are talking about when they blabber about the New World Order. Ponder the idea of making conspiracy theories true for a moment.
Japan had literally no chance of winning the war once the US decided to fight. It was only a question of WHEN they would lose, not if. They even recognized that and performed Pearl Harbor in the hopes of making the US give up early, as that was the only plausible way they would come out ahead. Rejecting the German scientists would have cost us a lot of post-war gains, but wouldn't have affected the war that much.