follow Goran_K following
follow Goran_K 2018 Mar 24, 9:51am
11,392 views 95 comments
« First « Previous Comments 25 - 95 of 95 Last »
What would it take to create a viable third party?
All it will take is for them to flip and turn their gun power on other Americans, triggering a brutal civil war. After that is done you can kiss goodbye to gun freedoms.
Wasn't the official U.S. line for Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. ?
Yet even him, he couldn't stand up to the military industrial complex and other big government entities. I have no doubt he did so under duress, because the guy publicly threatened to veto the spending bill, but he still signed it when it got to his desk.
As I was mentioning, the 2nd amendment will be destroyed by an abuse of that freedom by a concentration of power used to turn against other Americans.
ThreeBays saysAs I was mentioning, the 2nd amendment will be destroyed by an abuse of that freedom by a concentration of power used to turn against other Americans.Which would never happen. 3 Percenters don't believe in concentration of power (that's the antithesis of the meaning of the 2nd amendment and the founders vision), that's leftist/democrats who want that.
I did ?
The quarter of Americans that own guns don't believe in the concentration of power. However the 3 percent that own most of the guns ARE a concentration of power. It's not a matter of belief.
Trump has no ideology to stand on.
A better first question is why are less than 20% of Americans deciding who will be the President?People are stuck in 1776. Devolution is obviously real. How about we bring the USFEDGOV and it’s System of Governance into the 21st century. Why is it not desirable to have more people participating in the process?
How the fuck do leftist win a Civil War against the armed militia? I'd estimate one average rifleman would force multiply to around 10-20 soy boy cucks.
But as I type, aren't you of the camp that believes our military can kick ass when ever where ever just because we're Murica ?
I see you as a threat from Putin. Trying to sow discord among Americans or it is pure fluff
Thank you for proving my point about why the 2nd amendment is so valuable.
Was Vietnam/Afghanistan solid proof that armed militia can withstand a national army through the use of small arms and IEDs? 16 years going and Afghanistan is still in turmoil?
ThreeBays saysThe quarter of Americans that own guns don't believe in the concentration of power. However the 3 percent that own most of the guns ARE a concentration of power. It's not a matter of belief.So? The NRA has 5,000,000 members (nearly 6 million members now that David Hogg started opening his mouth). They are a concentration of power against a tyrannical government. You have a problem with that? Do you want the concentration of power to only be with the Federal government? See? This is proving my point that leftist want power concentrated with the government.
Given the efficiency of guerilla groups, it seems more like it's Putin that is engineering this campaign to ban firearms.
Compare that with countries that achieved independence through peaceful methods, India,
That's the Ghandi Myth. There were attacks on the British every day, hundreds of casualties a month
I don't think that the power of gun owners is comparable to the power of the modern government with drones, nukes, etc.. but I acknowledge your point about messy gorilla warfare.
Feux Follets saysWasn't the official U.S. line for Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. ?Exactly. That's what happens when an armed militia engages in asymmetrical warfare against a usurpatious government. The government forces get their asses kicked even with OVERWHELMING military force to muster. Thank you for proving my point about why the 2nd amendment is so valuable.
This is what Leftists don’t understand. If they ever actually get power enough to make the nationalist conservative Americans concerned they will face a backlash that will drive them from that power and probably from America entirely.
Also, no one is against guns but want some "gun control" .
Limits are already there , we are just looking readjust that.
I missed the news when the Iraqui and Afghani were victorious
Partially true. British left India as they could not make any money from Indians due to non-cooperation. It is the economy stupid ( not directed towards you)
OK, so what specifically do you want done? What NEW laws need to be written? It's already a felony to shoot and kill someone.What NEW laws will change that and make criminals obey?
WE all decide that includes you . It should be on the table and we should discuss that like civil people and not fan the flame of conspiracy theory like Russia wants us to. There are many countries to look at as model including Australia.
Ghandi was a weirdo religious fanatic who thought India should be an primitive agrarian country under his peculiar brand of Hinduism which was far out of the mainstream.
He thought Dalits and others should know their place, not be uppity, and trust upper caste individuals like him and never organize or get saucy.
He was also a sex pervert who declared a vow of chasity but had an enema fetish, especially if administered by pretty young girls. Basically, a kind of pegging dude.
He was the one who saved Muslims from slaughter in Bengal
Totally wrong. He brought Dalits in the mainstream
Can you give some reference or all you have is some conspiracy theories.
And for record, I am just for licensing to own a Assault weapons which should go to check your background.
Criminal can always get guns, just like in other countries, and so can you if you are a law abiding citizen.
Done with Republicans and Democrats, yup. Done.
when she has to use a clear backpack,
Goran_K saysDone with Republicans and Democrats, yup. Done.Another follower leaves the religion of the divisiveness paradigm, finally realizing that while the coin has two sides, it's still the same coin.
Hubris, Ignorance are the reason were are still there.
Tim Aurora saysI see you as a threat from Putin. Trying to sow discord among Americans or it is pure fluff Great minds think alike.
Second, do you know what a 4473 form is?
But the House Armed Services Committee version of the annual Pentagon policy bill included a common-sense provision to make sure the Pentagon isn't tasked with paying for the wall: "Section 1039. Rule of construction regarding use of Department of Defense funding of a border wall. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or otherwise made available for the fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to plan, develop or construct any barriers, including walls or fences, along the international border of the United States."...An amendment was offered by Republican Reps. Steven Palazzo and Trent Kelly from Mississippi (which has coastline but no land border) to strike Section 1039. That means Pentagon money could be spent to construct a border wall. In the normal process of things, this amendment would have been accepted by the Rules Committee and then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives. But nothing about this amendment can be called normal.The Rules Committee took this one amendment and labeled it, "proposed to be adopted." In the arcana of House rules, this means that voting for the rule governing consideration of the bill was also voting for this amendment. This is known as a "self-executing rule." The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, offered an amendment to strike the self-executing portion of the rule and was defeated in committee on a party-line vote of 4-8.On the House floor, the vote on the full rule passed. And at the end of a long and exhausting day (and story), that means Pentagon money can be used to construct a border wall. Talk about governing under the cover of darkness.
Sniper saysSecond, do you know what a 4473 form is?Is there something wrong with beefing up the 4473?
that means Pentagon money can be used to construct a border wall.
No - in the original 2017 bill, it said can't be used.
Trump’s pursuit of defense dollars to finance the U.S.-Mexico border wall underscores his determination to fulfill a campaign promise and build the barrier despite resistance in the Republican-led Congress. The administration’s last-minute negotiations with lawmakers to secure billions more for the wall failed and Trump grudgingly signed the spending bill last Friday after a short-lived veto threat...."This would be a blatant misuse of military funds and tied up in court for years. Secretary Mattis ought not bother and instead use the money to help our troops, rather than advance the president’s political fantasies,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement to The Washington Post.
We’re not allowed to have simple solutions that would actually work
Why not simply enact mandatory E-verify
My thinking is that E-Verify will not rile up voting base, while permanent, protracted Battle for Wall will. Kind of like War of Bathrooms-2.
That doesn't stop off-the-books employment by contractors,
he can't walk away, as he promised it repeatedly
That’s not how markets work. If the demand is held constant and supply is restricted by 30%, the cost as well as the price and incentives go up, and we’re right back where we started.
Yep, the pay for Americans goes up because there are fewer illegals, and the chances of being successfully smuggled goes down while the prices charged by smugglers goes up.
Drug Prices go up, so fewer poor people can afford them.
And the price for Americans to eat fresh fruit and vegetables goes up.
We can thank fucks like Martian Shkreli for drug prices going up and Congress for not letting us import them from Canada. And yes each day the price for life saving drugs go up because apparently we don't want capitalism in our drug markets.
I see, and that’s the sell? Build the Wall and then that will be the result?
If it doesn't work, it only costs $20B pretty much one time which is nothing compared to the Trillions we spend on just the Federal Level.
Why not let the Wall be built and laugh your ass of?
I’ve offered much better demand side solutions that would actually produce the desired results. Like ending the War on Drugs
There will be enhancements, alterations, improvements, - there will never be an end to spending the public's money on this and once the wall is done, then we can go back and build it correctly and make sure all the stuff works cause there will be "stuff" and it won't work first time around or be built quite correctly but the contractor will get paid on time, get a bonus for their work and receive many more lucrative government contracts.
We are already $20+ trillion in debt what's another $100 billion? Right?
Believe being the operative word. You’re operating on the wild assumption that the wall stems the flow of immigrants a/o drugs. People and drugs cross the border because the United States has large markets with Demand for Drugs and Cheap Labor. A speed bump in the Supply chain doesn’t address the demand side.
White Biker gangs have been moving drugs across our porous northern border for decades. If the Mexican wall somehow stemmed the flow of drugs in from that small section of our national borders, prices will increase, and the drugs will find their way in just the same. I have to assume the same goes for people.
There are approximately 2100 U.S. Border Patrol agents working the 4,000 mile border with Canada. Along the Mexico border, less than half the length of the border with Canada, there are 18,000 agents.
“If Homeland Security is really concerned with security, and the biggest security threat is terrorism, we should be more worried about the Canadian border than the Mexican border," said Cambell.
« First « Previous Comments 25 - 95 of 95 Last »