It's quite obvious the point is that there has to be some line drawn. I'm sure even the most rabid gun nut here would agree we can't give the general public access to RPGs and missile-equipped drones. Hanafuda is nostalgic for a time when kids could bring rifles to school, but that was also a time when the US had an abundance of mental hospitals and no internet radicalization pipelines. We need solutions for the problems of our present reality, not for the childish Chuck Norris-esque fantasies playing out in conservatives' heads.
It's quite obvious the point is that there has to be some line drawn. I'm sure even the most rabid gun nut here would agree we can't give the general public access to RPGs and missile-equipped drones. Hanafuda is nostalgic for a time when kids could bring rifles to school, but that was also a time when the US had an abundance of mental hospitals and no internet radicalization pipelines. We need solutions for the problems of our present reality, not for the childish Chuck Norris-esque fantasies playing out in conservatives' heads.
Besides, they've already demonstrated that they'd be in full support of unelected authoritarians/fascists taking over government anyway. Totally invalidates the argument that they need fully automatic weapons to fight against such an outcome.
My english teacher is long dead, as is the language that was used in the 2nd amendment.The well regulated militia is to the left of the comma. Go ask your English teacher about the use of commas, especially in the late 18th century.
That certainly describes the Trump presidency quite well, I'm not convinced that it's never ending though.Pretending that the most successful mob was "democratically elected" is the never-ending startup slogan of America.
Right, it's how you can tell a lot about the republicans who post on here.It's fruitless to discuss with far-right Republicans (or conservatives in general). They sincerely believe they are the "good guys", and that the nebulous "left" is evil (when they're ignorant of what the left even is. The Democratic Party is a mixed/big-tent party, not a formally leftist party.)
Hanafuda is nostalgic for a time when kids could bring rifles to school ....
Their behavior says otherwise.Docs don't make kick backs from those drugs anymore, but it's more of a bandaid on a bigger societal issue of medicating behavior
This is on purpose.Kid comes in, not behaving in school, bam medication
Also, Big Pharma doesn't make billions off of people sitting in psychologists offices.Issue is non pharmacological interventions require way more resources so people end up on drugs
Insurance companies are in on the Big Pharma grift too. Pfizer made over $100 billion last year, enough to buy off any doctor, hospital, insurance company, regulatory board like the CDC and FDA and uniparty politician.You know cognitive behavioral therapy is deemed just as effective as SSRI for depression? Guess how often I have seen a patient do CBT for depression - zero times - the services just aren't available and often insurance won't cover therapy -- but they are more than happy to cover drugs
As a doc myself I am telling you docs really aren't getting kickbacks from simple meds like that - those drugs aren't even that expensiveTheir behavior says otherwise.
This is on purpose.
Also, Big Pharma doesn't make billions off of people sitting in psychologists offices.
Insurance companies are in on the Big Pharma grift too. Pfizer made over $100 billion last year, enough to buy off any doctor, hospital, insurance company, regulatory board like the CDC and FDA and uniparty politician.
So the language both of us is speaking is dead. Interesting hot take you go there.My english teacher is long dead, as is the language that was used in the 2nd amendment.
Legal experts are paid to disagree.Even legal experts have disagreed what that statement meant.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2017/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017-10-3.pdf
Leftists here just regurgitate corporate media talking points.Right, it's how you can tell a lot about the republicans who post on here.
They have literally no self reflection, they are just bigots who believe everything that comes out of their own mouth.
Why would I want to hide my views on a public forum that I am freely commenting on? What dastardly views do you think I'm hiding? What evil plans am I concocting down here in Florida? LOL!!!!But I don't think we should press the point so much, because then they might learn how to hide it & it's best for us if they keep vocalizing their distorted views.
So no doctor anywhere is making any money off of pushing SSRI's on people? You know this for a fact?As a doc myself I am telling you docs really aren't getting kickbacks from simple meds like that - those drugs aren't even that expensive
You should check out the price of chemotherapy that doctors push on cancer patients with no alternatives. I have first hand experience that cancer doctors are making bank prescribing that poison.The drugs that really make money are monoclonal antibodies
You should ask your english teacher about the evolution of language.So the language both of us is speaking is dead. Interesting hot take you go there.
Legal experts are paid to disagree.
Public decency?Why would I want to hide my views on a public forum that I am freely commenting on?
More personal responsibility is exactly what I'm arguing for, background checks need to be universal and far more comprehensive, and sellers need to face serious jail time for noncompliance. Which is something that even about 70% of conservatives agree on. Impossible to hold mass shooters accountable after they've already killed 3+ people and committed suicide, nor can accountability after the fact undo any of the damage they've done for the ones that survive.Your willingness to opt out of personal responsibility and go the way of "how should we maintain the existence of those who have no opinions whatsoever" speaks a lot to me.
"Most successful mob" is an awfully stupid way of saying "majority," but that's precisely how democracy works. Granted, a two-party system is far too close to oligarchy for my tastes, but the only system even more dysfunctional than that is the one you argue in favor of, dictatorship installed by a rabid minority.Pretending that the most successful mob was "democratically elected" is the never-ending startup slogan of America.
Apparently we ain't too dumb to understand commas.You should ask your english teacher about the evolution of language.
Shakespear spoke english too, the language he spoke is long dead.
Americans speak their own bastardized english, and have their own spelling because they were deemed too dumb to learn the original spelling.
Different judges come to different conclusions. It even happens on the same court.Judges aren't paid to disagree.
Then shut your virgin eyes and stop responding to me. Nobody is forcing you to be here.Public decency?
Law enforcement is not there to prevent crime. They are not even obligated to protect you. What you want is for people to be arrested, tried and convicted of thought crimes. That's not how things work around here, son.More personal responsibility is exactly what I'm arguing for, background checks need to be universal and far more comprehensive, and sellers need to face serious jail time for noncompliance. Which is something that even about 70% of conservatives agree on. Impossible to hold mass shooters accountable after they've already killed 3+ people and committed suicide, nor can accountability after the fact undo any of the damage they've done for the ones that survive.
You keep saying that everybody you disagree with wants to install a dictatorship, but you never provide any examples of anybody actually saying that. It's time to put up or shut up, because all that you are doing is projecting."Most successful mob" is an awfully stupid way of saying "majority," but that's precisely how democracy works. Granted, a two-party system is far too close to oligarchy for my tastes, but the only system even more dysfunctional than that is the one you argue in favor of, dictatorship installed by a rabid minority.
Are you saying that mass shootings are perpetuated by crazy people? I'm always told it's the gun's fault, especially if it's one of those scary looking AR-15's that makes soy boys crap their pants when they see a picture of one.It's quite obvious the point is that there has to be some line drawn. I'm sure even the most rabid gun nut here would agree we can't give the general public access to RPGs and missile-equipped drones. Hanafuda is nostalgic for a time when kids could bring rifles to school, but that was also a time when the US had an abundance of mental hospitals and no internet radicalization pipelines.
You want a dictator to take guns away from non-crazy people who don't commit crimes instead of advocating for mental health programs for the crazy people. You are not about solutions.We need solutions for the problems of our present reality, not for the childish Chuck Norris-esque fantasies playing out in conservatives' heads.
Our government has already been taken over by unelected authoritarians/fascists. They are called the bureaucracy. This happens decades ago. Where have you been?Besides, they've already demonstrated that they'd be in full support of unelected authoritarians/fascists taking over government anyway. Totally invalidates the argument that they need fully automatic weapons to fight against such an outcome.
So we fix it or get rid of it and replace it with something better. We're not talking about the police anyway, background checks go through the FBI, and they have already prevented plenty of crime.Law enforcement is not there to prevent crime. They are not even obligated to protect you.
No, I want to prevent people with a history of mental illness or criminal activity from being able to purchase guns, ESPECIALLY when that criminal activity includes previous weapons charges, as was the case for the Michigan college shooter.What you want is for people to be arrested, tried and convicted of thought crimes.
Tabzer in no uncertain terms stated he's not in favor of democracy, and we've been in enough arguments that I have a clear picture of his political leanings. Let's just say he was in full support of all the criminal activity that occurred on January 6th.You keep saying that everybody you disagree with wants to install a dictatorship, but you never provide any examples of anybody actually saying that.
The FBI is the federal police. They also, do not prevent crime. They investigate crimes. You keep saying "replace it with something better", but you never say with what, because we all know what you want to do and it requires a dictator to do it, but you can't figure out how to say is and still call me an authoritarian fascist.So we fix it or get rid of it and replace it with something better. We're not talking about the police anyway, background checks go through the FBI, and they have already prevented plenty of crime.
It is already illegal for people with a history of mental problems and felons from buying guns. The weapons charges for the Michigan shooter were dismissed if I remember correctly, so there wouldn't be a record of it. Blame DA's for not prosecuting criminals and being soft on crime. The right has been talking about this for years and years now. Where have you been? It's like you don't pay attention to what is going on.No, I want to prevent people with a history of mental illness or criminal activity from being able to purchase guns, ESPECIALLY when that criminal activity includes previous weapons charges, as was the case for the Michigan college shooter.
I'm also not in favor of a democracy. We live in a republic and I'd like to keep it that way. Being of support of the January 6th protest is completely different than being in support of the criminality that took place. I'm sure you are in full support of the BLM protests even though more than 30 people were murdered and black businesses and neighborhoods were burned to the ground. Should I make the claim that you support the murder of black people and the destruction of their lives, because it does seem that way.Tabzer in no uncertain terms stated he's not in favor of democracy, and we've been in enough arguments that I have a clear picture of his political leanings. Let's just say he was in full support of all the criminal activity that occurred on January 6th.
Background checks have prevented crime. There is no disputing this. Expanding them and making them more comprehensive would prevent more crime, and a vast majority of Americans agree are in favor of that. You're an extreme outlier.The FBI is the federal police. They also, do not prevent crime.
Incorrect, they were reduced from felony to misdemeanor, but any weapons-related charge should still be enough to prevent the purchase of more guns going forward.The weapons charges for the Michigan shooter were dismissed if I remember correctly
Fascists of a feather flock together, I'm shocked. /sI'm also not in favor of a democracy.
This is how I know you are against the 4th amendment. And I don't mind being an extreme outlier. The Founders were also extreme outliers. I'm in good company.Background checks have prevented crime. There is no disputing this. Expanding them and making them more comprehensive would prevent more crime, and a vast majority of Americans agree are in favor of that. You're an extreme outlier.
The law says only felons cannot buy guns. That is why his charges were reduced to a misdemeanor. DA's like that are the reason people should be armed. Letting criminals loose on an unsuspecting populace should be cause for removal. I bet Democrat Rep. Angie Craig has been made a believer in putting criminals in jail after finding out her attacker had been arrested for violent crimes 12 times prior to her attack.Incorrect, they were reduced from felony to misdemeanor, but any weapons-related charge should still be enough to prevent the purchase of more guns going forward.
Sure, HItler and Mussolini were huge fans of republics.Fascists of a feather flock together, I'm shocked. /s
The fuck does this have to do with the 4th amendment? The purpose of background checks is to catch previous convictions which would've been subject to due process already. Only criminals would be intent on avoiding a background check when purchasing guns.This is how I know you are against the 4th amendment.
Right, I'm saying the law needs to be changed to include misdemeanor weapons convictions as well. Giving someone who has already been found to be irresponsible with guns a second chance to buy them is the very definition of insanity.The law says only felons cannot buy guns.
They wouldn't give a shit what you call it as long as they were able to seize control of it through violent means. People like you want to make that easy.Sure, HItler and Mussolini were huge fans of republics.
Or people who value their privacy and don't wish to give an authoritarian government their info. But we all know you love authoritarians.The fuck does this have to do with the 4th amendment? The purpose of background checks is to catch previous convictions which would've been subject to due process already. Only criminals would be intent on avoiding a background check when purchasing guns.
Possessing brass knuckles is a misdemeanor weapons charge. What does that have to do with owning a firearm?Right, I'm saying the law needs to be changed to include misdemeanor weapons convictions as well. Giving someone who has already been found to be irresponsible with guns a second chance to buy them is the very definition of insanity.
Our republic was founded through violent means. Know your history or just shut up already. I'm getting tired of embarrassing you on every thread.They wouldn't give a shit what you call it as long as they were able to seize control of it through violent means. People like you want to make that easy.
I wouldn't be bragging about illegally circumventing a background check on the internet, but you do you.Or people who value their privacy and don't wish to give an authoritarian government their info. But we all know you love authoritarians.
I'm referring specifically to gun-related charges, that should've been obvious.Possessing brass knuckles is a misdemeanor weapons charge. What does that have to do with owning a firearm?
Violence is not and has never been how we choose our representatives though, dipshit, and you know it. When you have to resort to being this obnoxiously obtuse, you've already lost the argument.Our republic was founded through violent means.
More personal responsibility is exactly what I'm arguing for, background checks need to be
Majority of what? If you are trying to call on me, try offering a more concise label."Most successful mob" is an awfully stupid way of saying "majority," but that's precisely how democracy works.
So people aren't individually responsible for the crimes they've committed which would/should prevent them from purchasing a gun? Wut.Let me stop you right there. Personal responsibility is the opposite enforcing background checks.
Majority of voters. Sad that one of our two parties actively tries to prevent more of the populace from voting, but nobody is requiring them to cling to outdated and unpopular policies/positions. They do that of their own volition.Majority of what?