Trump's Final 100 days
Quote: AZDuffmanSee what I said about drugs. In fact, we are starting to legalize drugs because to stop them is so futile.
It is not a gun problem, it is a people problem. Always has been. Ever notice the places with the most gun laws have high gun violence?
BTW: Personal protection is not a "stupid hobby." You want to give up your freedoms for safety, well, if you do you deserve to be neither free nor safe.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. It simply makes the person a liar.
Quote: AZDuffmanSee what I said about drugs. In fact, we are starting to legalize drugs because to stop them is so futile.
It is not a gun problem, it is a people problem. Always has been. Ever notice the places with the most gun laws have high gun violence?
BTW: Personal protection is not a "stupid hobby." You want to give up your freedoms for safety, well, if you do you deserve to be neither free nor safe.
You don't need an AR-15 for protection. The only reason to have an AR-15 is because you want to have an AR-15. That's a hobby.
Quote: AZDuffmanSee the post above.
You say too many absurd things not to take it seriously but if that wss an example of absurdity for way example (and not an attempt to troll) then i apologize
Quote: Maverick17The liar wrote a "tell all" book about YOUR PRESIDENT in 1991.
In a 1997 playboy article trump said much of the book is probably true.
Two years later YOUR PRESIDENT was asked about the specific quote, a full 17 years BEFORE he became YOUR PRESIDENT, and he stated that was another lie of this O'Donnell guy.
To say a quote is true because it is "un-prove-ably" false is why CNN is fake news.
10 and more than a half years to go of the Greatest Commander-In-Chief of modern America!
MAGA
lmao, so he said it was probably true, and then he said it wasn't true
Speaking of links, here's one:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
CNN will be here LONG AFTER this proven liar is gone.
Not having a gun to shoot prevents people from shooting people.
Not having ammunition to shoot would also prevent people from shooting people.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is not a gun problem, it is a people problem. Always has been. Ever notice the places with the most gun laws have high gun violence?
Yeah, speaking of places with more gun laws, how's Australia's homicide problem? New Zealand? Germany? Austria? Denmark? Netherlands? Sweden? Finland? Ireland? Canda? Luxembourg? Belgium? Switzerland? Where do we match up? Here's a hint: It's not even close.
Buh-buh-buh-buh-buh....CHICAGO! What about Chicago!!!!
Yeah, look at neighboring states and get back to me when you find out how lax the gun laws are just a few hours away from Chicago.
No, guns are the problem, the abundance of guns in our country is the problem. That is the only characteristic that distinguishes us from other countries. Other countries have people too right? But do other countries have 90 guns per 100 people?
Quote: SteverinosYeah, speaking of places with more gun laws, how's Australia's homicide problem? New Zealand? Germany? Austria? Denmark? Netherlands? Sweden? Finland? Ireland? Canda? Luxembourg? Belgium? Switzerland? Where do we match up? Here's a hint: It's not even close.
Buh-buh-buh-buh-buh....CHICAGO! What about Chicago!!!!
Yeah, look at neighboring states and get back to me when you find out how lax the gun laws are just a few hours away from Chicago.
Hawaii is another good example.
The "but what about Chicago" argument is one of the dumbest ones that they constantly spew out. The bad faith is endless on their side.
RE-DICK-U-LOUS.
The same Bill of Rights that gives me the RIGHT (not privilege) to bear arms while not infringed is the same bill of rights that SJW/liberals/fascists/democrats say we cannot put that nut job in a mental institution after repeated violence and terroristic threats were made against the people he ultimately killed and injured because he has "free speech."
So the solution of the SJW/liberal/fascist/democrat is to take away rights of the innocent rather than the privilege of their voting base.
Are you part of a militia?
Do we rely on militias to protect freedoms in 2018?
Do we rely on our military, which we did not have when the Constitution was ratified, to protect us in 2018?
Do you believe that the 2A was written to protect us from a tyrannical government?
Quote: darkozIn fact i raise you
Azduffman is trolling. Isnt that against forum rules?
Quote: AZDuffmanSee the post above.
I was about to post what AZD did, but he beat me to it. "Argumentum ad absurdum", a common tactic and one AZD has always been fond of. He's making the point that "making gun laws" will likely have the same effect as, well, the laws we already have. It's illegal to kill people, yet people still get killed. Many firearm types are already illegal, and it was of no effort to obtain mine.
Can we get back to our regularly scheduled now? Please. I'll try and help by going back to...
Quote: rxwineYou want guilt to mine? Try this
Quote:From 1778 to 1871, the United States government entered into more than 500 treaties with the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated in some way or outright broken by the US government,[21][22][23][24] while at least one treaty was violated or broken by Native American tribes.[25] However, violations by one party do not nullify the treaties under US law; the treaties still have legal effect today, and Native Americans and First Nations peoples are still fighting for their treaty rights in federal courts and at the United Nations.[22][26]
White people sure are lousy.
It's crazy how Indian Country is continually forgotten, and also goes to show that... there's something to all this that's as fake as a Kardashian sister.
Most here "know" that slavery "ended" in 1863 with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. I'd bet it's very few who know that slavery ACTUALLY didn't end until two years later, once the 13th was finally ratified. But who here among us knows that slavery continued after 1865 and into the 1870's? The US gov continued its practice, pitting tribe against tribe, using the more capable warrior tribes to loot and pillage their weaker brethren where the defeated continued to be sold as slaves for the white man's machine. Weird how no one talks about that, no?
And what of me? I'm Seneca, one of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy up here in upstate NY. Did you know my people fought in the American Revolution? Did you know we fought FOR the British?
So what am I? Am I a "minority" who has "been oppressed", not only since the days of "1492" but even to this day by way of the non-stop barrage on our treaties? Or am I a terrorist rebel who should have been wiped out hundreds of years ago, and the flying of my Three Rows as treasonous as the Stars and Bars?
F#$% if I know. But if you were to go back in time to say, 1986-ish when I spent all my school days drawing race cars, you'd find a whole lotta Rebel flags adorning them. Because the Stars and Bars mean the General Lee, and the General Lee is (was) the baddest f#$%ing car on the planet. You can claim racism if you want, but in a region that has a black population of 0.8%, I'd have to ask you how it would even be possible for me to hate what I had never at that point even seen.
Gotta run. Later.
Quote: Dalex64Yes, it is true, having laws against shooting people does not prevent people from shooting people.
Not having a gun to shoot prevents people from shooting people.
Not having ammunition to shoot would also prevent people from shooting people.
and absolutely none of that matters.
This has been hashed out time and time again. After the Newtown shooting is was in the forefront for a good while.
All banning guns does is reduce "gun crime." ("gun crime" is a made up term of liberals. Guns do not, and have never, committed a crime.)
There are plenty of places where guns have been almost if not entirely universally banned. The rate of violent crime (a real, measurable statistic) has never decreased. In almost, if not EVERY case, violent crime skyrocketed.
England. Australia. South Africa. Many others. Violent crime skyrockets. "gun crime" goes down.
Only a liberal would rather 10,000 more rapes, 2,000 more murders, 5,000 more hot burglaries, as long as the incredible increase in crime happens with less guns involved.
Quote: FaceI'd bet it's very few who know that slavery ACTUALLY didn't end until two years later, once the 13th was finally ratified. But who here among us knows that slavery continued after 1865 and into the 1870's?
Oh man, it continued long after that. The 13th allowed slavery to continue as punishment for crimes. The South's economy relied on slavery. So black people just got arrested for stupid s**t that white people didn't get arrested for. Slavery continued.
Again, highly recommend the Netlifx documentary "13th".
You still see mass killings in Europe, they just happen with pipe bombs, stabbing, and trucks through crowds rather than guns.
If we could magically make all the guns in the US disappear overnight, I think we would just see similar events carried out with different weapons.
I could be wrong, and I’m certainly not saying I have a solution, but that is just how I see it right now, so by all means rebutt
Quote: Steverinos
Again, highly recommend the Netlifx documentary "13th".
I searched it but 13th Warrior came up and, remembering how bad ass of a movie that was, I'm gonna watch that instead. Let me guess, I'm racist ;)
Quote: Maverick17and absolutely none of that matters.
This has been hashed out time and time again. After the Newtown shooting is was in the forefront for a good while.
All banning guns does is reduce "gun crime." ("gun crime" is a made up term of liberals. Guns do not, and have never, committed a crime.)
There are plenty of places where guns have been almost if not entirely universally banned. The rate of violent crime (a real, measurable statistic) has never decreased. In almost, if not EVERY case, violent crime skyrocketed.
England. Australia. South Africa. Many others. Violent crime skyrockets. "gun crime" goes down.
Only a liberal would rather 10,000 more rapes, 2,000 more murders, 5,000 more hot burglaries, as long as the incredible increase in crime happens with less guns involved.
My answer to the vapid question "guns don't kill people" is "people without guns don't kill people with guns"
as for violent crimes, one that is important to me is violent crimes of mass murder.
Quote: Maverick17
England. Australia. South Africa. Many others. Violent crime skyrockets. "gun crime" goes down.
This is a common (false) claim I’ve heard many times. ALL violent crime is well down in 2018 compared to 1996 when Australian gun laws were enacted. A simple google search of official government statistics will show that.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe only "history" of racism I have seen with Trump is liberals claiming he is one because they have no constructive way to defend their desire for more illegal immigration and open borders.
LOL
Cant believe she cant remember when Trump said a Hispanic judge cant be fair due to his race
Even Ryan called Trump out as a racist
How soon she forgets
ROTFL
People don't just kill people just because. There's a reason behind it. IMO, go after the mental health and get that under control. Make talking about your feeling and whatnot more acceptable, I think that starts at an early age.
Quote: Dalex64My answer to the vapid question "guns don't kill people" is "neither do people without guns"
I don't get it. Is this a play on words or some kind of reference I've never heard?
Quote: RSEveryone knows if there's a problem that you want to fix, you go after the root of the problem, not some surface level "quick fix".
There are some problems you can't fix. Mass murderers will be mass murderers. Psychopathic serial killers come out of perfectly normal families with perfectly normal upbringing. Some suicides want to take out as many other people as possible.
So given a problem you can't fix, you instead must take way their ability to do great harm.
So, no, you don't need more laws, making more things illegal, you need more actions to keep things away from the people who would abuse them.
Quote: AussieThis is a common (false) claim I’ve heard many times. ALL violent crime is well down in 2018 compared to 1996 when Australian gun laws were enacted. A simple google search of official government statistics will show that.
Man, I've been down that rabbit hole ever since terapined gave me the "What about AU" challenge back during the Vegas shooting. I still haven't replied because I'm still going.
I'm not yet touching your claim that it's down. But let us not pretend that any bit of this is "simple" ;)
Quote: RS
I don't get it. Is this a play on words or some kind of reference I've never heard?
Haven't you heard the claim that guns don't kill people before?
OK. I'll contest this as a Brit living in England.Quote: gamerfreakI’d 100% be for super strict gun control if I was convinced that is the issue, but I’m not.
You still see mass killings in Europe, they just happen with pipe bombs, stabbing, and trucks through crowds rather than guns.
...
I could be wrong, and I’m certainly not saying I have a solution, but that is just how I see it right now, so by all means rebutt
You mention pipe bombs, trucks and stabbings. Well, there have indeed been a very few bombings. Plus a VERY few vehicular murder events. Very few, but very memorable to us Brits. I reckon, without looking at the stats that if you combine our bombings and vehicle in crowd events, we would probably not match the equivelent US stats alone. And didn't you just have some murder by vehicle events? Why didn't the Charlotesville guy use a gun?
Here, the nearest proxy for gun crime is probably crime aggravated by possession of a knife. There are some general stats here and they suggest that even considering the worst crimes available, the UK does not have anything like the US levels of risk.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
We are pretty unhappy that murder rates are on the rise and as a nation we have over 600 murders per year.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/19/rising-at-increasing-rate-in-england-and-wales-police-figures-show
Comparable maybe to a large US city
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/chicago-762-homicides-2016-nyc-la-article-1.2931020
UK Knife crime is very aggressively tackled by the police and is probably only a problem in the most risky areas of our major cities. To give some comparisons, from my own point of view.....
I cannot recall the last time I heard of any kind of murder within 50 miles of me ( the nearest towns of Crewe and Stoke ). That's any kind, whether domestic violence, stabbing, punch up, burglary gone wrong or whatever. Yes, they happen and local media makes a big story if a shop is robbed at knifepoint, etc, but I doubt our non-gun crime is any worse than any typical US town. I actually had a friend who worked on the Staffs murder squad as a detective. He was in the thick of it as far as murders were to be investigated. He probably worked on less than one murder of any kind per month in a county of three or four large provincial towns.
I also cannot recall ever reading of any UK child accidentally killing himself with any weapon, nor of any kid killing another with a knife (or gun) while playing with it.
Also, for perspective,
I would very confidently walk through the roughest areas that I know of at 3am in the morning. I HAVE NEVER felt that my life was in danger while out of the home, even when I was recently in London, walking back to my hotel in quite a rough area at midnight. I could see there was a level of poverty and quite a high level of ethnic diversity, but no hint of a threat to me as a 5x year old vulnerable white guy.
Can you US guys say that, without resorting to carrying?
Quote: RSIMO, go after the mental health and get that under control
52 out of 235 mass murderers, about 22%, in a database maintained by a psychiatrist at Columbia University, were deemed mentally ill. The stats and the numbers show that mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of mass murder than they are to be perpetrators.
That doesn't mean we can't do more for mental illness treatment. Now I don't know the numbers for sure, but I'm going out on a limb and predicting that Trump's latest budget slashes funding for treatment of mental illness in some capacity. Just a hunch.
Quote: RogerKintI searched it but 13th Warrior came up and, remembering how bad ass of a movie that was, I'm gonna watch that instead. Let me guess, I'm racist ;)
Give it a look after the movie. It really is worth it.
Netflix is soooooooooooooooo awesome. Blockbuster turned down that merger. lmao
Quote: Steverinos52 out of 235 mass murderers, about 22%, in a database maintained by a psychiatrist at Columbia University, were deemed mentally ill. The stats and the numbers show that mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of mass murder than they are to be perpetrators.
That doesn't mean we can't do more for mental illness treatment. Now I don't know the numbers for sure, but I'm going out on a limb and predicting that Trump's latest budget slashes funding for treatment of mental illness in some capacity. Just a hunch.
I don't buy that those deemed mentally ill were. As soon as someone does something that horrific it is the easiest defense. Maybe they really were but probably not.
Quote: FaceMan, I've been down that rabbit hole ever since terapined gave me the "What about AU" challenge back during the Vegas shooting. I still haven't replied because I'm still going.
I'm not yet touching your claim that it's down. But let us not pretend that any bit of this is "simple" ;)
There is no disputing that Australian violent crime is well down since our gun laws came into force. It’s a no contest. Not even close. Would you see the same results in your country? That’s up for debate but my gut feel is perhaps not.
I feel like there are other underlying issues with your society that seem to make it inherently more violent. Simple logic tells you that the more difficult it is to obtain guns, the less people will have them and therefore the less people will snap and blow other people away. But that doesn’t take into account other factors like the entrenched gun culture you have. I feel like there are such diometrically opposes views on this that making it more difficult to obtain these weapons would not have the same effect as it did in Australia. I’m sure there would be a large portion of your population who would be perfectly happy to get rid of them. But there is also a large portion who are extremely passionate about keeping them. I think the high likelihood of a more extensive black market developing would limit the effectiveness of any laws restricting availability.
I think it’s a complex topic and both sides are guilty of simplistic thinking. There is laughable garbage spouted by both sides that’s for sure.
Which I guess is what 300 or so GOP politicians in Washington are doing today, anyway.
There really is no debate to have if no one is willing to budge.
Let the mass killings continue and let nothing be done, because hey, hey, nobody does it better than the U S of A.
Sounds good. Let's allow smoking on airplanes, too.
Quote: boymimbo
Let the mass killings continue and let nothing be done, because hey, hey, nobody does it better than the U S of A.
Eh? I think you need to see how the cartels do it in Mexico. They could teach the Americans a thing or two. Disarm the American population and you can have the same here!
Quote: boymimboFace is right. It's a complex topic. I have nothing to contribute here because nobody learns anything anyway. I have yet to see anyone on this forum admit, "you know, you do have a point." Rather, when a point is actually made, it is met with silence.
Which I guess is what 300 or so GOP politicians in Washington are doing today, anyway.
There really is no debate to have if no one is willing to budge.
Let the mass killings continue and let nothing be done, because hey, hey, nobody does it better than the U S of A.
Sounds good. Let's allow smoking on airplanes, too.
One of the biggest problems we are having today, if not THE biggest problem we are having today, is that we live in entirely different information universes. We can't even begin to think about having a meaningful debate if we can't agree on the things that are not up for debate...the facts!
It used to be that Americans woke up for work and read the morning paper. Or we got home from work and turned on Walter Cronkite. Not today. Nope. Today we have failed journalism students writing blogs, crazy conspiracy theorists tweeting, crazy conspiracy theorists saying Newtown didn't happen (OUR President praised this guy, how sad is that), or Russian bots planting fake stories from BOTH points of view with the goal of dividing us even further. We used to ALL be working from the same baseline of information in order to make our decisions. Not anymore.
And what is scary is that we currently have a leader who does not think any of this is a problem. He's even embraced most of it! It's like he didn't understand that as POTUS, you will be scrutinized! This isn't Celebrity Apprentice! His response to that scrutiny? Oh, just call it #fakenews and his supporters won't believe any of it. After all, he is the guy who said he could shoot people on 5th ave and not lose any supporters.
That might be one of the only times he's ever told the truth.
Quote: AussieI feel like there are other underlying issues with your society that seem to make it inherently more violent. Simple logic tells you that the more difficult it is to obtain guns, the less people will have them and therefore the less people will snap and blow other people away. But that doesn’t take into account other factors like the entrenched gun culture you have. I feel like there are such diometrically opposes views on this that making it more difficult to obtain these weapons would not have the same effect as it did in Australia. I’m sure there would be a large portion of your population who would be perfectly happy to get rid of them. But there is also a large portion who are extremely passionate about keeping them. I think the high likelihood of a more extensive black market developing would limit the effectiveness of any laws restricting availability.
All valid points. Think too that at the time of Port Arthur, there was much public support and, importantly, cooperation. Additionally, your gov took it so seriously so as to truly invest in it. You see, our version of "buyback" involves offering $15 for a ruined / antique / non firing firearm, $25 for a long gun, and $50 for pistol / semi auto rifle. What is essentially one dinner for two for an item which runs a thousand dollars, minimum. We have nothing so lavish as a "just compensation" law like y'all have. Our .gov just says "Gimme". Think also, your 33mm people with 3mm guns equals just a handful of our largest cities. To scale up, you're talking a several billion dollar program. And since there's no way for pols to skim or make deals off of it....
Lots of facets to it. Shame none are discussed.
EDIT: I've seen some programs implemented at the state level. I was referring to federal.
Quote: SteverinosI have never seen a buyback program with specific figures proposed by any lawmaker from either party.
EDIT: I've seen some programs implemented at the state level. I was referring to federal.
Sorry. Yes, this was local. Didn't mean to imply that it was federal. Suppose that was my mistake what with the ".gov".
AU's $500mm, though, was at the federal, and that where I took that number from.
Quote: Maverick17No links.....
Some mods claim a poster should be banned (or at least suspended) for not providing links......
The first line of BullS&*t is at BEST third hand recollections of a known liar. Not a single other person on planet earth heard this statement, and that's because it was first uttered by known ignoramus about a quote PRE 1991. I am sure he got it word for word, lolololololololololololol
second has be proven false so many times it proves you have no proof.
https://www.snopes.com/trump-laziness-is-a-trait-in-blacks/
That stuff about mods requiring quotes is nonsense. At best a misunderstanding of what's required.
If you quote an article, you must keep it short, and fair use applies; you should provide a link. It is best to quote the source if you are citing an excerpt from something to make a point. Attributing a quote to Trump, assuming that quote is accurate, is sufficient in itself, because the quote is attributed and can be independently verified.
Quote: FaceAll valid points. Think too that at the time of Port Arthur, there was much public support and, importantly, cooperation. Additionally, your gov took it so seriously so as to truly invest in it. You see, our version of "buyback" involves offering $15 for a ruined / antique / non firing firearm, $25 for a long gun, and $50 for pistol / semi auto rifle. What is essentially one dinner for two for an item which runs a thousand dollars, minimum. We have nothing so lavish as a "just compensation" law like y'all have. Our .gov just says "Gimme". Think also, your 33mm people with 3mm guns equals just a handful of our largest cities. To scale up, you're talking a several billion dollar program. And since there's no way for pols to skim or make deals off of it....
Lots of facets to it. Shame none are discussed.
We've discussed it before ad nauseum. We discussed it after After Sandy Hook. After Vegas. After Orlando. After San Bernandino. After Sutherland Springs. Solution: nothing can be done. It's just our violent nature.
My POV: we already legislate arms. I can't cultivate Ricin. I can't own nukes. Hand Grenades are illegal in many states and all must be registered with ATF. I can't plant mines on my property, though it would be a very good and effective defense. For some reason the line is drawn at a certain class of guns (automatic) and in many states regulations differ and these regulations have all stood up to supreme court challenges: your second amendment rights are not being deterred. The AR-15 and its ilk have been very destructive recently, and though it would a great deal of political courage to do so, classifying these weapons as destructive and making them illegal to own with a generous buy back program (and tax credit to boot) would likely prevent many of the mass killings prevalent today.
Others will argue that it's not a problem as mass weapon death pales in comparison to regular handgun death. That is a valid argument. 50 other people died today of gun violence, one by one (plus another 60 who killed themselves via the gun). That's a different and separate problem to solve and will be solved eventually via culture change and education.
All I ask is that they be consistent. For some reason they don't carry the same argument when it comes to Muslims or immigrants.
Sure seems like it.
Quote: rxwineAre semi-automatic fast firing guns WMDs?
Sure seems like it.
The National Firearms Act defines what destructive weapons are. They are not illegal, but all (including automatic firearms, by the way) are registered and ATF must give permission for one to own such a weapon. Background checks on these weapons take about a year. As well, local law enforcement is informed if you own a weapon and the transport of these weapons are highly restricted.
It is no coincidence that the difficulty of obtaining these weapons probably is why we haven't heard about missiles, land mines, grenades, fully automatic weapons, nuclear devices, chemical attacks (real), and other destructive arms being used for the murder of school children, gay people at a night club, loud country music revelers, church goers, or federal workers. They are all banned. They are all arms, things THAT should be protected as part of your 2nd Amendment rights. It is only a distinction in words that makes the weapons above highly difficult to own.
There is no reason why the definition of "destructive weapon" could not include the AR-45 and like weapons. Automatic weapons were outlawed in 1986. I think it's worth a debate. Banning the AR-45 and AR-45 type weapons would likely have the long-term effect of reducing the number of mass shootings; it does nothing however to reduce the day-to-day milieu of murder and suicide via smaller yet-perfectly reasonable handguns.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe only "history" of racism I have seen with Trump is liberals claiming he is one because they have no constructive way to defend their desire for more illegal immigration and open borders.
Exactly!!!
----------------------
Spoons and forks kill more people than guns.
Save us! Ban the assault fork and spoon!
Quote: KeyserExactly!!!
----------------------
Spoons and forks kill more people than guns.
Save us! Ban the assault fork and spoon!
The issue with guns (for me) isn't really about people shooting themselves. Had that kid walked into school and ate himself to death it would be a tragic but individual issue which could be addressed as a public health problem, that might be addressed by a nurse, instead of 30 police cars and a swat team.
They received a warning September about Cruz when he posted “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” on YouTube, using his real name. TAG
He was also on Facebook and Instagram, where he posted comments and photos of his weapons. TMZ AJC
Despite this information, the FBI says they could not locate him.
They could have obtained his IP address from any of these sites.
Donald Trump, a Playboy Model, and a System for Concealing Infidelity
There's nothing illegal here (besides Trump offering women money for sex, I guess). But it gives a lot of credence to the various women who have come forward with allegations about Donald's behavior towards them.
Poor Melania. Why can't she keep her man satisfied?!?!
Quote: ams288Ronan Farrow strikes again.
Donald Trump, a Playboy Model, and a System for Concealing Infidelity
There's nothing illegal here (besides Trump offering women money for sex, I guess). But it gives a lot of credence to the various women who have come forward with allegations about Donald's behavior towards them.
Poor Melania. Why can't she keep her man satisfied?!?!
Hes sleeping with a lot of women and unprotected. He probably has syphilis. That might explain his crazy behavior
Quote: TankoThe FBI director should explain how they blew this case.
They received a warning September about Cruz when he posted “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” on YouTube, using his real name. TAG
He was also on Facebook and Instagram, where he posted comments and photos of his weapons. TMZ AJC
Despite this information, the FBI says they could not locate him.
They could have obtained his IP address from any of these sites.
A cynic would say they were too busy with warrants from secret courts based on phony dossiers.
Really, IMHO, law enforcement is forgetting what basic police work is about. In this case they had a lead but not much else. They might get many a day. They probably get many a day. Both the FBI and local law enforcement look at such leads and say, "NOTHING WE CAN DO!"
While there is no case for a warrant, what happened to a good old friendly knock? Remember in "Breaking Bad" when Hank asked this so they could inspect the laundry? It seems more now that unless it is about issuing tickets to raise revenue or getting in military gear to smash in a door, they are less than interested.
Good local police work would mean stopping by the guy's house and saying, "sir, we have some reports of some threats, just need to chat." Then you take it from there. At the least the guy then knows he is being watched.
Quote: AZDuffmanA cynic would say they were too busy with warrants from secret courts based on phony dossiers.
Don't you remember? The much-hyped GOP "memo" proved that the dossier had nothing to do with starting the FBI's investigation into Trump.
OOPS
Quote: AZDuffmanBoth the FBI and local law enforcement look at such leads and say, "NOTHING WE CAN DO!"
If an NYPD Superior ever responded to even a veiled terroristic threat the way the FBI did, he or she would be told to put their papers in forthwith.
It does not matter whether they get one a month or 100 a day. “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” is a terroristic threat that should have been investigated to resolution.
He was on three social media sites. They had a lot to work with. Not just his IP address.
How To See Exactly where a Photo Was Taken
Exposing the Invisible
They can waste more than a year on non-existent Russian collusion, but they only spent five minutes on Cruz.
F’n Bunch of Idiots
Quote: Dalex64There are some problems you can't fix. Mass murderers will be mass murderers. Psychopathic serial killers come out of perfectly normal families with perfectly normal upbringing. Some suicides want to take out as many other people as possible.
So given a problem you can't fix, you instead must take way their ability to do great harm.
So, no, you don't need more laws, making more things illegal, you need more actions to keep things away from the people who would abuse them.
You can at least try in a discussion. If you're going to say there are some problems you can't fix, then so will I. Even if you ban guns, people will still get them. It's a problem you wouldn't be able to fix.
I don't think "mass murderers will be mass murderers". There's clearly something that triggers that to happen. However, if you think murderers will be murderers, then it doesn't matter if we ban guns or not.
Quote: Dalex64Haven't you heard the claim that guns don't kill people before?
I have. I've just never heard "people without guns don't kill people". Surely you're aware there are other ways to kill people, right?
Quote: SteverinosOne of the biggest problems we are having today, if not THE biggest problem we are having today, is that we live in entirely different information universes. We can't even begin to think about having a meaningful debate if we can't agree on the things that are not up for debate...the facts!
It used to be that Americans woke up for work and read the morning paper. Or we got home from work and turned on Walter Cronkite. Not today. Nope. Today we have failed journalism students writing blogs, crazy conspiracy theorists tweeting, crazy conspiracy theorists saying Newtown didn't happen (OUR President praised this guy, how sad is that), or Russian bots planting fake stories from BOTH points of view with the goal of dividing us even further. We used to ALL be working from the same baseline of information in order to make our decisions. Not anymore.
And what is scary is that we currently have a leader who does not think any of this is a problem. He's even embraced most of it! It's like he didn't understand that as POTUS, you will be scrutinized! This isn't Celebrity Apprentice! His response to that scrutiny? Oh, just call it #fakenews and his supporters won't believe any of it. After all, he is the guy who said he could shoot people on 5th ave and not lose any supporters.
That might be one of the only times he's ever told the truth.
Are you serious? How many times has Trump called out CNN and other MSM networks for being fake news? And you're saying he's embraced most of it and he doesn't think it's a problem? :smh:
Quote:A little over a month after his inauguration, on Feb. 28, 2017, President Trump signed HJ Resolution 40, a bill that made it easier for people with mental illness to obtain guns. CBS News then asked the White House to release the photograph of Mr. Trump signing the bill, making the request a total of 12 times.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders finally responded to repeated emails and phone calls with a one-line note on April 19, 2017, writing to CBS News, "We don't plan to release the picture at this time."
Quote:This joint resolution nullifies the “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007” rule finalized by the Social Security Administration on December 19, 2016. The rule implements a plan to provide to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check System the name of an individual who meets certain criteria, including that benefit payments are made through a representative payee because the individual is determined to be mentally incapable of managing them. (Current law prohibits firearm sale or transfer to and purchase or possession by a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/40?ftag=MSF0951a18
Quote: RSAre you serious? How many times has Trump called out CNN and other MSM networks for being fake news? And you're saying he's embraced most of it and he doesn't think it's a problem? :smh:
Ridiculous.
Donald Trump doesn't tell the truth...about anything. He lies about things that are easily fact checked.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
(by the way, I saw Fox citing politifact last night on two different occasions to call out a dem congresswoman)
So what does he do? He calls reputable news outlets that have been doing this for decades and will CONTINUE to provide news after he is gone as fake. THEY...are the liars. THEY...are the ones spreading misinformation because of THEIR agenda. It's the only defense to convince his supporters that HE is the only one they can believe. When I said he's embraced it, I mean he's embraced the spread of misinformation by HIM, guys like Hannity, guys like Alex Jones (Newtown didn't happen), and the Russian bots he pleaded with to hack Hillary's emails.
It sounds like we are both shaking our heads.
Quote: rxwinehttps://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/40?ftag=MSF0951a18
Yup. Maybe if his motivation was to actually make tough decisions and lead instead of just reversing everything Obama did, he wouldn't be such an idiot.
But hey, let's have a parade. Seriously.
