"some banks even allow you to withdraw up to 5,000 francs per day (or 10,000 a month) at the cash machine without advance notice."
I should be able to withdraw 100% of my money immediately, no matter the amount, or else it's not my money.
That's at a cash machine, dipshit. They have a limited amount of cash in them at any given time. Plus, the daily ATM withdrawal limit is a safeguard to mitigate loss if someone compromises your card. If you go into the bank and talk to a teller, you can take out as much as you want, and even liquidate your account and close it, if you wish.
It's still your money. Technically, it is owed back to the Federal Reserve, if you are dealing in American dollars. But in everyday practice it is your money.
> Interestingly, you could probably do a national sales tax if all the money went directly to some sort of UBI - the requirement is that the money be sent to the states in proportion to population
If you incentize people to sit around and have kids and nothing else, you ensure the proliferation of any group that gets close to that optimal strategy.
Why do you assume that a UBI would be an incentive to sit around and have kids? You could quit your job today and go on welfare. Just think, you could just sit around all day! You wouldn't have to work at all! But you don't do that. Why not? Aren't you incentivized to?
And still people won't vote independent. Why not "waste" your vote? You believe too many fairy tales.
Unfortunately, or voting system essentially gurantees that behavior. The spoiler effect is a real thing. Third (or fourth, or fifth) parties won't have a chance in this country until we have ranked choice voting nation wide.
As much as I enjoy your mindless bashing of the right, have a look at the wombles in charge of this. Two of them are Democrats.
Oh, indeed. Screwing the American people for the ruling class is a bi-partisan affair. It's funny what unites the two parties, eh?
Divide and conquer still works as a strategy. This is the kind of stuff that happens while we are fighting among ourselves. Left and right, black and white, Americans and immigrants. The ruling class wants and fosters these divisions, because they keep us distracted from the people who are actually disenfranchising the general population.
If the bottom 2/3 of the country could put aside their differences and focus on their common interests, it would be a revolution in this country. But too many people are freaking out over Trump or Socialism to see their common ground; just as was intended.
But the USA does not have the "best democracy", not by a long shot.
US corporations actually run the US, the elections are only there to change the people whom are told what to do, and to give the voters the false impression they have a choice.
Why did you ignore the second part of the phrase? The US is the best democracy money can buy. If you have money, you can buy as much government action as you want. You are in agreement with the person you responded to.
You are correct, however, in saying that such a situation cannot really be called a democracy. It's more of a plutocracy. The myth of America being a republican democracy used to be generally accepted and believed. But I think it is starting to wear thin these days. People on the Left and the Right are coming to understand that only the wealthy have their needs met by the government, at least at the national level; local governments can be better. And they don't like it. I think that's why Bernie Sanders is so popular on the Left, and Donald Trump so popular on the Right. Both men run on making the government work for the common person, who feels like he/she has been left behind by the economy and society.
The ruling class got too greedy and took too much. They didn't leave enough for everyone else. Now the mobs are coming for them from both sides, electorally speaking.
You do know, it's illegal for a hospital to turn you away because you cannot pay. They have to provide emergency services. At least we can get services in the US, unlike the months-long waits in Canada, the UK, and most of the rest of the socialized medicine countries.
You think they don't have emergency rooms in Canada?
You'd have to be able to predict the future to know exactly where to place the stickers where the assassination victim would head-on the truck coming the other way
After observing someone for a little while, you can start to predict their movements. Most people operate on a general routine and schedule. You can know their route to work, and approximately when they will get there. Your confederate could be driving the truck. I'm sure there are less elaborate ways to do someone in, however.
A purely emotional reason is that people are so nervous about having their own business - despite the fact they know many twelve year old kids mow lawns. They might personally know a 12 year old who mows 10 lawns every week for $300, yet they work 30 hours for the same money because their nervous about whether they can do the same thing that kids all over America do.
That 12 year old kid doesn't "own a business". Owning an actual business comes with tax an regulatory implications. You have to set up an LLC, pay both sides if FICA, arrange to pay yourself through the business, etc. Sure, it can be done. But it's not the same as some kid mowing lawns for spending money.
If one is negotiating a project in Russia, it is misleading to say that one has no projects in Russia. That is, unless it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Everyone knows that Trump lies like clouds rain, so I'm not sure what your point is, exactly.
As Secretary of State she could have killed the sale, and as Secretary of State she would likely be able to influence the Presidentâ(TM)s decision as part of her normal duties.
When approval must be unanimous, any one of the approves can make or break the deal.
Could the deal have gone forward without her approval/support? Doubtful.
When HRC was on a trajectory to the Oval Office her houndation took in huge amounts of donations, as soon as she lost the election donations all but stopped. Coincidence?
We know that her scheduler made notes of major foundation donors on her daily schedule as (fob, friends of bill) - why would donations stop if not connected to her work? The mission of the foundation never changed. Why note FOB on calendar if it didnâ(TM)t get the visitor special access?
I would not be surprised if this were the case. I understand how political power works. But the frothing over the Uranium One deal is that Secretary Clinton sold Uranium to Russia. That does not appear to be the case. That's all I'm saying.
Hopefully the aftermarket steps in to give people back their cars' full capability. The ECU software I run on my car removes the electronic governor, making the top speed limited by the top gear ratio. Just be sure to not outrun your tires.;-)
You wouldn't like people who used fan fiction paid for by your political opponent as the basis for turning the entire US intelligence gathering powers against you either.
Because that's what the fantasy-based ("uncorroborated" and "unconfirmed") Steele dossier is - Hillary-paid-for fan fiction.
And the FBI used it as the basis of at least four FISA warrants, and deliberately used it to brief Trump so they could then leak it to the press.
Much of the Steele Dossier has been proven true by subsequent investigation. None of it has been proven false, AFAIK.
Why won't the FBI declassify the Uranium One documents?
Who was FBI director at the time of the Uranium One deal?
Why didn't Mueller recuse himself in the so-called "Russia investigation"?
The Clinton-Russia Coverup continues...
Really, we're still on the Uranium one deal? Fox News, of all outlets, debunked this over a year ago.
From the linked article: "The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not," Smith said. "A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the US to Russia."
There is plenty for which to criticize Hillary Clinton. You don't have to resort conspiracy theories.
Video games are a particularly obvious subset of the worst offenders without supervision, which even as lacking in the real world is obviously not present at all in Call of Duty. You're a moron. Call of Duty is full of morons like you.
Basically you're agreeing with me, that trolls exist in video games. Count yourself among them, it's pretty obvious.
So you want to be a slave to lawmakers and regulators now.
Grow up.
From the government, to big corporations, to money itself, you are going to be a "slave" to something or someone. At least you have some control over the government.
You allege that undesired receipt of support from David Duke, a proven racist, confers bad status upon Donald Trump, or that David Duke even thinks Trump is racist, as opposed to Duke supporting Trump for economic or Immigration policies which happen to coincide with Duke's racist beliefs. You believe in a one-way propagation of racism and other monstrous behavior by being the target of support, or a two-way symbiosis of racism and other monstrous behavior by being the target of support.
Please rethink your argument and restate.
I believe we can judge people by the company they keep. And there is no mystery as to why David Duke supports Donald Trump. "We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.” From whom does he want to take his country back? Democrats? High taxes? You think that's it? You may be right, considering how often David Duke and the KKK make public statements about economic issues. Maybe Duke was talking about tax cuts when he said that at a rally to oppose the removal of a Confederate statue! It's so hard to tell, eh?
> I'm saying other racists think Donald Trump is a racist.
How can a person unfamiliar with elementary logic gets upmodded to max on a Slashdot?
By being correct. David Duke said, “We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”
From whom do you think he wants to take his country back? Keep in mind, he said this at a rally to oppose the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee. What does he think are the promises of Donald Trump? Tax cuts for the rich, maybe? It's just so hard to tell!
A racist supporting someone else doesn't make that someone a racist. But the left continues to push that logic failure.
I specifically said I was not saying Trump is a racist. I'm saying other racists think Trump is a racist. It's one of the things they really like about him. But sure, keep pushing that logic failure.
I'm not saying Trump is a racist; I'm saying other racists think Donald Trump is a racist. So congratulations.
A lie by insinuation.
They simply support him as a government official-- presumably because they believe his policies are copasetic with their interests.
That doesn't mean they think he's a rabid racist like they are, simply as an ally.
And of course a government offal-- er-- official wants votes and support from whoever they can get it from.
David Duke and the KKK have literally announced their support for Donald Trump. I'm not saying Trump is a racist; I'm saying other racists think Donald Trump is a racist.
No. If I supported Clinton in the last Presidential election that wouldn't mean Clinton inherits my views on civil liberties. It simply means that her views align with mine enough that I think she would be a good leader. Similarly with Duke's support of Trump, I am guessing Duke thinks Trump's views align with his and those views may not be racism. Duke's support is unwanted in most circles but it is a bit of a leap to assume that support is given based on racism.
Oh? We don't know why David Duke thinks Donald Trump's views align with his own? Gosh, how could we find out? Maybe we could see what Mr. Duke has to say about the matter!
“We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”
Now, who do you think he wants to take his country back from? The Democrats? Candy stripers and soda jerks? Keep in mind that when Trump was forced to make mouth noises about how hate has no place in this country, Duke replied thusly, "I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists."
So let's drop the pretense that we don't know why David Duke and the KKK support Donald Trump and think his views align with their own. It's a stupid game to play. Like I said, I'm not saying Donald Trump is a racist. I'm saying other racists think Trump is a racist. And they should know.
But the 2nd Amendment says they should be regulated,
Actually, the phrase is "shall not be infringed". That means unregulated. Regulations infringe on rights.
What you are incorrectly referring to is the clause that describes one reason why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's descriptive, not proscriptive, and it's just one reason.
But then, inalienable rights don't need even one reason to exist, they are assumed to exist on their own. If you don't agree with that, please provide the reason that you should be secure in your person, place, and property. If you have nothing to hide... see how that "inalienable" stuff works?
No, actually the phrase is "A well regulated militia". Regulation is literally the first three words of the amendment. You say it's descriptive, then let's make it descriptive. Let's make it so that the militias in this country can be described as well regulated. Since we don't really have militias in this country anymore, I'll even grant you that every legal gun owner can be considered part of the national militia. So let's make it so they can be described as "well regulated". It is, after all, right there in the amendment.
It's a bit funny to me that people still think the Democrats want to take poeple's guns. How long have we been hearing this? And yet, it hasn't happened, even when they controlled both houses and the Presidency.
It's funny when their leader says things like this:
The Dems have the same problem with gun control that the Reps have with immigration. A majority of each party wants to take action on their respective issue, but, not having a unanimous consensus, they can't take action without help from the other. Controlling the houses of Congress and the Presidency is not enough. You have to have enough control to shove the bill through. Dems were able to do that with their takeover of the healthcare system, but they didn't have enough of a consensus in their own party to do that with guns.
Can you please post the quote from that article where Pelosi calls for taking people's guns? Because, you know, that was my point; that Democrats talk about gun control, but have not taken people's guns, even when they controlled both houses and the presdency. It seems to me like she is talking about declaring a national emergency about the gun violence endemic in this country. That's it. She doesn't say what actions should or would be taken. But again, gun regulation is in the 2nd Amendment. It's literally the first three words. So I'm not sure why there is so much controversy.
The KKK were the violent political extreme of the Democratic Party. They're racist because the Democratic Party is racist. Regarding rape, i only know about Billy C. There are probably others. Baby killers is obvious; you may disagree with the politics of Pro-life groups, but you can't deny that post-birth humans are persons by law, and that viable third trimester fetuses are babies in everything except their uterine status.
The existing Democratic Party also supports the KKK, but not openly. They also support the AntiFa who are the new racist KKK with a different style of masks. Don't believe me? Start doing some research into how many AntiFa thugs who get arrested for assaulting bystanders shout racial slurs at the bystanders, especially Hispanic bystanders.
Hey look! It's some guy that can't tell the different between the 1950's and today! It's like you don't even know that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were president. And stop it with your concern trolling about racism. Like you give a fuck.
The Democrats themselves say that they want to take your guns..... You should probably keep up on current events. *IN ADDITION* criminals do not follow firearms purchase laws, so yeah, making it harder for LAW ABIDING people to obtain firearms does exactly ZERO to stop criminals. Idiot.
They do? Citation needed. And every gun owner is law abiding until they aren't. Many shootings have been perpetrated by people who bought their guns legally and had no previous criminal record.
It may surprise you to learn that I am not against private gun ownership. But it must be more tightly regulated, like it says in the 2nd Amendment. Too many Responsible Gun Owners have proven themselves to be anything but responsible. Like this fucking genius who fired into a busy parking lot after a fleeing shoplifter. And to your point about stopping criminals, how many stolen guns are sold on the black market? How many are sold in private sales to God-knows-who? If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and in the hands of (currently) law abiding citizens, you should want tighter gun regulation. We have laws that keep alcohol out of the hands of minors. We could do something similar with guns. But you would still lose your shit over it. And yes, I know that alcohol regulation is not 100% effective. But if you are going to point that out, you might as well argue that laws in general are useless.
Slashdot Mirror
"some banks even allow you to withdraw up to 5,000 francs per day (or 10,000 a month) at the cash machine without advance notice."
I should be able to withdraw 100% of my money immediately, no matter the amount, or else it's not my money.
That's at a cash machine, dipshit. They have a limited amount of cash in them at any given time. Plus, the daily ATM withdrawal limit is a safeguard to mitigate loss if someone compromises your card. If you go into the bank and talk to a teller, you can take out as much as you want, and even liquidate your account and close it, if you wish.
It's still your money. Technically, it is owed back to the Federal Reserve, if you are dealing in American dollars. But in everyday practice it is your money.
Except for the fact that he was peddling stolen information.
Peddling? Was he selling it?
> Interestingly, you could probably do a national sales tax if all the money went directly to some sort of UBI - the requirement is that the money be sent to the states in proportion to population
If you incentize people to sit around and have kids and nothing else, you ensure the proliferation of any group that gets close to that optimal strategy.
Why do you assume that a UBI would be an incentive to sit around and have kids? You could quit your job today and go on welfare. Just think, you could just sit around all day! You wouldn't have to work at all! But you don't do that. Why not? Aren't you incentivized to?
And still people won't vote independent. Why not "waste" your vote? You believe too many fairy tales.
Unfortunately, or voting system essentially gurantees that behavior. The spoiler effect is a real thing. Third (or fourth, or fifth) parties won't have a chance in this country until we have ranked choice voting nation wide.
As much as I enjoy your mindless bashing of the right, have a look at the wombles in charge of this. Two of them are Democrats.
Oh, indeed. Screwing the American people for the ruling class is a bi-partisan affair. It's funny what unites the two parties, eh?
Divide and conquer still works as a strategy. This is the kind of stuff that happens while we are fighting among ourselves. Left and right, black and white, Americans and immigrants. The ruling class wants and fosters these divisions, because they keep us distracted from the people who are actually disenfranchising the general population.
If the bottom 2/3 of the country could put aside their differences and focus on their common interests, it would be a revolution in this country. But too many people are freaking out over Trump or Socialism to see their common ground; just as was intended.
But the USA does not have the "best democracy", not by a long shot.
US corporations actually run the US, the elections are only there to change the people whom are told what to do, and to give the voters the false impression they have a choice.
Why did you ignore the second part of the phrase? The US is the best democracy money can buy. If you have money, you can buy as much government action as you want. You are in agreement with the person you responded to.
You are correct, however, in saying that such a situation cannot really be called a democracy. It's more of a plutocracy. The myth of America being a republican democracy used to be generally accepted and believed. But I think it is starting to wear thin these days. People on the Left and the Right are coming to understand that only the wealthy have their needs met by the government, at least at the national level; local governments can be better. And they don't like it. I think that's why Bernie Sanders is so popular on the Left, and Donald Trump so popular on the Right. Both men run on making the government work for the common person, who feels like he/she has been left behind by the economy and society.
The ruling class got too greedy and took too much. They didn't leave enough for everyone else. Now the mobs are coming for them from both sides, electorally speaking.
You do know, it's illegal for a hospital to turn you away because you cannot pay. They have to provide emergency services. At least we can get services in the US, unlike the months-long waits in Canada, the UK, and most of the rest of the socialized medicine countries.
You think they don't have emergency rooms in Canada?
You'd have to be able to predict the future to know exactly where to place the stickers where the assassination victim would head-on the truck coming the other way
After observing someone for a little while, you can start to predict their movements. Most people operate on a general routine and schedule. You can know their route to work, and approximately when they will get there. Your confederate could be driving the truck. I'm sure there are less elaborate ways to do someone in, however.
A purely emotional reason is that people are so nervous about having their own business - despite the fact they know many twelve year old kids mow lawns. They might personally know a 12 year old who mows 10 lawns every week for $300, yet they work 30 hours for the same money because their nervous about whether they can do the same thing that kids all over America do.
That 12 year old kid doesn't "own a business". Owning an actual business comes with tax an regulatory implications. You have to set up an LLC, pay both sides if FICA, arrange to pay yourself through the business, etc. Sure, it can be done. But it's not the same as some kid mowing lawns for spending money.
If one is negotiating a project in Russia, it is misleading to say that one has no projects in Russia. That is, unless it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Everyone knows that Trump lies like clouds rain, so I'm not sure what your point is, exactly.
As Secretary of State she could have killed the sale, and as Secretary of State she would likely be able to influence the Presidentâ(TM)s decision as part of her normal duties.
When approval must be unanimous, any one of the approves can make or break the deal.
Could the deal have gone forward without her approval/support? Doubtful.
When HRC was on a trajectory to the Oval Office her houndation took in huge amounts of donations, as soon as she lost the election donations all but stopped. Coincidence?
We know that her scheduler made notes of major foundation donors on her daily schedule as (fob, friends of bill) - why would donations stop if not connected to her work? The mission of the foundation never changed. Why note FOB on calendar if it didnâ(TM)t get the visitor special access?
I would not be surprised if this were the case. I understand how political power works. But the frothing over the Uranium One deal is that Secretary Clinton sold Uranium to Russia. That does not appear to be the case. That's all I'm saying.
Hopefully the aftermarket steps in to give people back their cars' full capability. The ECU software I run on my car removes the electronic governor, making the top speed limited by the top gear ratio. Just be sure to not outrun your tires. ;-)
You wouldn't like people who used fan fiction paid for by your political opponent as the basis for turning the entire US intelligence gathering powers against you either.
Because that's what the fantasy-based ("uncorroborated" and "unconfirmed") Steele dossier is - Hillary-paid-for fan fiction.
And the FBI used it as the basis of at least four FISA warrants, and deliberately used it to brief Trump so they could then leak it to the press.
Much of the Steele Dossier has been proven true by subsequent investigation. None of it has been proven false, AFAIK.
Why won't the FBI declassify the Uranium One documents? Who was FBI director at the time of the Uranium One deal? Why didn't Mueller recuse himself in the so-called "Russia investigation"?
The Clinton-Russia Coverup continues...
Really, we're still on the Uranium one deal? Fox News, of all outlets, debunked this over a year ago.
From the linked article: "The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not," Smith said. "A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the US to Russia."
There is plenty for which to criticize Hillary Clinton. You don't have to resort conspiracy theories.
Video games are a particularly obvious subset of the worst offenders without supervision, which even as lacking in the real world is obviously not present at all in Call of Duty. You're a moron. Call of Duty is full of morons like you.
Basically you're agreeing with me, that trolls exist in video games. Count yourself among them, it's pretty obvious.
Apparently, trolls exist on Slashdot too...
So you want to be a slave to lawmakers and regulators now.
Grow up.
From the government, to big corporations, to money itself, you are going to be a "slave" to something or someone. At least you have some control over the government.
You allege that undesired receipt of support from David Duke, a proven racist, confers bad status upon Donald Trump, or that David Duke even thinks Trump is racist, as opposed to Duke supporting Trump for economic or Immigration policies which happen to coincide with Duke's racist beliefs. You believe in a one-way propagation of racism and other monstrous behavior by being the target of support, or a two-way symbiosis of racism and other monstrous behavior by being the target of support. Please rethink your argument and restate.
I believe we can judge people by the company they keep. And there is no mystery as to why David Duke supports Donald Trump. "We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.” From whom does he want to take his country back? Democrats? High taxes? You think that's it? You may be right, considering how often David Duke and the KKK make public statements about economic issues. Maybe Duke was talking about tax cuts when he said that at a rally to oppose the removal of a Confederate statue! It's so hard to tell, eh?
How's that for a restatement?
> I'm saying other racists think Donald Trump is a racist.
How can a person unfamiliar with elementary logic gets upmodded to max on a Slashdot?
By being correct. David Duke said, “We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”
From whom do you think he wants to take his country back? Keep in mind, he said this at a rally to oppose the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee. What does he think are the promises of Donald Trump? Tax cuts for the rich, maybe? It's just so hard to tell!
A racist supporting someone else doesn't make that someone a racist. But the left continues to push that logic failure.
I specifically said I was not saying Trump is a racist. I'm saying other racists think Trump is a racist. It's one of the things they really like about him. But sure, keep pushing that logic failure.
I'm not saying Trump is a racist; I'm saying other racists think Donald Trump is a racist. So congratulations.
A lie by insinuation. They simply support him as a government official-- presumably because they believe his policies are copasetic with their interests. That doesn't mean they think he's a rabid racist like they are, simply as an ally. And of course a government offal-- er-- official wants votes and support from whoever they can get it from.
Ah, so racism lite, then?
No. If I supported Clinton in the last Presidential election that wouldn't mean Clinton inherits my views on civil liberties. It simply means that her views align with mine enough that I think she would be a good leader. Similarly with Duke's support of Trump, I am guessing Duke thinks Trump's views align with his and those views may not be racism. Duke's support is unwanted in most circles but it is a bit of a leap to assume that support is given based on racism.
Oh? We don't know why David Duke thinks Donald Trump's views align with his own? Gosh, how could we find out? Maybe we could see what Mr. Duke has to say about the matter!
Now, who do you think he wants to take his country back from? The Democrats? Candy stripers and soda jerks? Keep in mind that when Trump was forced to make mouth noises about how hate has no place in this country, Duke replied thusly, "I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists."
So let's drop the pretense that we don't know why David Duke and the KKK support Donald Trump and think his views align with their own. It's a stupid game to play. Like I said, I'm not saying Donald Trump is a racist. I'm saying other racists think Trump is a racist. And they should know.
But the 2nd Amendment says they should be regulated,
Actually, the phrase is "shall not be infringed". That means unregulated. Regulations infringe on rights.
What you are incorrectly referring to is the clause that describes one reason why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's descriptive, not proscriptive, and it's just one reason.
But then, inalienable rights don't need even one reason to exist, they are assumed to exist on their own. If you don't agree with that, please provide the reason that you should be secure in your person, place, and property. If you have nothing to hide ... see how that "inalienable" stuff works?
No, actually the phrase is "A well regulated militia". Regulation is literally the first three words of the amendment. You say it's descriptive, then let's make it descriptive. Let's make it so that the militias in this country can be described as well regulated. Since we don't really have militias in this country anymore, I'll even grant you that every legal gun owner can be considered part of the national militia. So let's make it so they can be described as "well regulated". It is, after all, right there in the amendment.
It's a bit funny to me that people still think the Democrats want to take poeple's guns. How long have we been hearing this? And yet, it hasn't happened, even when they controlled both houses and the Presidency.
It's funny when their leader says things like this:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/1...
The Dems have the same problem with gun control that the Reps have with immigration. A majority of each party wants to take action on their respective issue, but, not having a unanimous consensus, they can't take action without help from the other. Controlling the houses of Congress and the Presidency is not enough. You have to have enough control to shove the bill through. Dems were able to do that with their takeover of the healthcare system, but they didn't have enough of a consensus in their own party to do that with guns.
Can you please post the quote from that article where Pelosi calls for taking people's guns? Because, you know, that was my point; that Democrats talk about gun control, but have not taken people's guns, even when they controlled both houses and the presdency. It seems to me like she is talking about declaring a national emergency about the gun violence endemic in this country. That's it. She doesn't say what actions should or would be taken. But again, gun regulation is in the 2nd Amendment. It's literally the first three words. So I'm not sure why there is so much controversy.
Great username, by the way.
The KKK were the violent political extreme of the Democratic Party. They're racist because the Democratic Party is racist. Regarding rape, i only know about Billy C. There are probably others. Baby killers is obvious; you may disagree with the politics of Pro-life groups, but you can't deny that post-birth humans are persons by law, and that viable third trimester fetuses are babies in everything except their uterine status. The existing Democratic Party also supports the KKK, but not openly. They also support the AntiFa who are the new racist KKK with a different style of masks. Don't believe me? Start doing some research into how many AntiFa thugs who get arrested for assaulting bystanders shout racial slurs at the bystanders, especially Hispanic bystanders.
Hey look! It's some guy that can't tell the different between the 1950's and today! It's like you don't even know that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were president. And stop it with your concern trolling about racism. Like you give a fuck.
The Democrats themselves say that they want to take your guns..... You should probably keep up on current events. *IN ADDITION* criminals do not follow firearms purchase laws, so yeah, making it harder for LAW ABIDING people to obtain firearms does exactly ZERO to stop criminals. Idiot.
They do? Citation needed. And every gun owner is law abiding until they aren't. Many shootings have been perpetrated by people who bought their guns legally and had no previous criminal record.
It may surprise you to learn that I am not against private gun ownership. But it must be more tightly regulated, like it says in the 2nd Amendment. Too many Responsible Gun Owners have proven themselves to be anything but responsible. Like this fucking genius who fired into a busy parking lot after a fleeing shoplifter. And to your point about stopping criminals, how many stolen guns are sold on the black market? How many are sold in private sales to God-knows-who? If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and in the hands of (currently) law abiding citizens, you should want tighter gun regulation. We have laws that keep alcohol out of the hands of minors. We could do something similar with guns. But you would still lose your shit over it. And yes, I know that alcohol regulation is not 100% effective. But if you are going to point that out, you might as well argue that laws in general are useless.