« First « Previous Comments 208 - 247 of 1,445 Next » Last » Search these comments
I disagree. Democracy is 1 person, 1 vote.
Not 1 person with $300MM = 2000 votes. 1 person with no money = 1 vote.
ude seriously?
From your MSN poll.
"The poll was conducted on Feb. 20 among 1,992 registered voters." I'm sure very tilted towards DNC registered voters.
The TYT poll has 330,000 respondents.
Guess which one is statistically more trustworthy?
5 million people beating 2-3 coastal leftist billionaires from stripping them of their rights. Sounds very Democratic even using your own definition.
Don't be ridiculous. The polling I posted above shows conclusively that the vast majority of the population is for tighter gun control. It's only the gun manufacturer $$ and their lobby that is stopping the will of the people.
Right, the Gun Owner's National Association, the NRA, has 5M members.
Not one National Gun Ban Association has 5M members or even 1M members.
Clearly, the handful of Gun Ban Groups with a handful of wealthy donors is the "Will of the People".
Right, the Gun Owner's National Association, the NRA, has 5M members.
Not one National Gun Ban Association has 5M members or even 1M members.
The other thing, there are over 100M gun owners, so 5M is only 5%, yet the liberals think the NRA speaks for ALL gun owners.
Don't be ridiculous. The polling I posted above shows conclusively that the vast majority of the population is for tighter gun control. It's only the gun manufacturer $$ and their lobby that is stopping the will of the people.
In the 2016 election, the NRA spent $11,438,118 to support Donald Trump’s campaign and donated $19,756,346 to groups opposing Hillary Clinton’s. However, the bulk of the contributions have gone to House and Senate members. Here is a look at the top 10 recipients of NRA contributions.
The will of the people is much more accurately measured by polling than by number of activists.
Wow, looking at the lobbyists, no wonder health care is so F**ked up in this country. Their stock shot to the moon with Obamney Care.
No wonder we don't have border security or immigration enforcement with "Don't ask for a copy of workers' papers, but don't you copy our IP" CoC Suckers being #1
And Alphabet/Google, that explains the war on Privacy.
There's not one anti-gun citizen run advocacy group with a 5 million person PAID MEMBERSHIP. Not even 100,000.
Goran_K saysDon't see you accusing Hollywood and Silicon Valley of "meddling in law making".
"discuss anything but the other users"
Reading comprehension issues ?
Read up on how polling is done--especially the parts about obtaining a representative population in the polling.
Yes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait...
OF Course they would donate to oppose Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton would have severely weakened the 2A movement. Trump ran on a pro 2A platform. I spent money to oppose Hillary Clinton (over $10,000+).
Why is this a big deal?
And we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
anon_cf6c6 saysYes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait...
Yep, and Hillary did win the popular vote. The polls were right.
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
anon_83081 saysAnd we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
And, more importantly, Trump has followed Republican rule #1 and given more wealth to the 1%.
Whereas Democrats don't help the 1%, right? Feinstein just wants to eliminate the F-35 and raise the tariff, right?
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Whereas Democrats don't help the 1%, right? Feinstein just wants to eliminate the F-35 and raise the tariff, right?
No, the Republican party is the party of the 1%. Everything they do has pretty much one thing in mind--help the rich.
We cross-checked the Open Secrets list of the top 100 individuals donating to outside spending groups in the current election against the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires and found that, as of June 19, there were 22 individuals on the Open Secrets list who were billionaires. Of those 22 billionaires, 13 -- or more than half -- gave predominantly to liberal groups or groups affiliated with the Democratic Party. The other nine gave predominantly to conservative groups.
Historically you'd have been right, but we live in strange times, where the elite are represented more by Democrats than Republicans:
It totally destroys the Liberal narrative that guns=major death, and need a total ban.
People start to realize maybe this really isn't the battle they should be fighting
These are the top 5 killers in our country, 61.6% of deaths, and there is no outrage, no movement. 1.6M dead in 2015. Our reaction is madness.
Pretty sure there is outrage at heart disease and cancer, and a heck of a lot of money being spent already combating these diseases.
So, again, I'll ask--is the US not capable of pursuing multiple solutions at the same time?
« First « Previous Comments 208 - 247 of 1,445 Next » Last » Search these comments
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.