Let's hope that this vigilante witch doesn't get a second chance. The next time she pulls a stunt like this an innocent may lose their life.
1. What do you think "vigilante" means?
2. She allegedly let a guy accused of drug possession escape. How did you get from there to anyone potentially losing their life?
I thought I might mention the climate change protests in London by Extinction Rebellion. Those have just ended after 10 days or so (though as the group is newly formed and has no clear leadership structure, I wouldn't be surprised if some protests still continue). An interesting point about those was that a specific aim of the protests was to cause disruption to the general public. That's very unusual in the UK (unlike France for instance), where there's plenty of history of protest - but that's normally aimed at more specific targets. In this case the protesters obviously felt that there was a need for people generally, as well as politicians more specifically, to 'wake up' to the problems.
There was an interesting contrast between the tactics of this group and a recent visit by Greta Thunberg to the UK. She's a 16 year old Swedish school girl, who's had an amazing impact across Europe following her decision to skip school for 1 day a week and go and picket the Swedish parliament to take more action on climate change. Her tactics are all about quiet reasoning, not noisy protests, and have clearly struck a chord with an awful lot of people (not just school children looking for any excuse to skip school ).
I think that having both forms of protest deployed simultaneously can be quite powerful, something like the Indian independence movement had both strands for example. The moderate protesters appear more credible because they have a more extreme movement to which they are compared (just as Farage's Brexit party benefits from UKIP's ravings). It's touching that Thunberg calls attention to the positive contributions that people on the autistic spectrum can make to society as well.
William Barr's Justice Department has decided to deport Butina, the Russian spy tied to the GOP and NRA, instead of trying her in a criminal case.
I can't help but think Barr has decided to cover up crimes involving the GOP and the NRA and Russia by silencing the problem and sending her back to Russia. I strongly suspect that a lot of the redacted stuff in the Mueller report detailed actions by her and the GOP and the NRA. But now she has served her purpose which was allowing Barr to redact embarrassing information and crimes involving the GOP. Large portions of the report were redacted due to ongoing criminal matters like this that he can just end now. Now she's gotta go before anyone can find out the extent of the crimes of the GOP.
I thought I might mention the climate change protests in London by Extinction Rebellion. Those have just ended after 10 days or so (though as the group is newly formed and has no clear leadership structure, I wouldn't be surprised if some protests still continue). An interesting point about those was that a specific aim of the protests was to cause disruption to the general public. That's very unusual in the UK (unlike France for instance), where there's plenty of history of protest - but that's normally aimed at more specific targets. In this case the protesters obviously felt that there was a need for people generally, as well as politicians more specifically, to 'wake up' to the problems.
There was an interesting contrast between the tactics of this group and a recent visit by Greta Thunberg to the UK. She's a 16 year old Swedish school girl, who's had an amazing impact across Europe following her decision to skip school for 1 day a week and go and picket the Swedish parliament to take more action on climate change. Her tactics are all about quiet reasoning, not noisy protests, and have clearly struck a chord with an awful lot of people (not just school children looking for any excuse to skip school ).
I think that having both forms of protest deployed simultaneously can be quite powerful, something like the Indian independence movement had both strands for example. The moderate protesters appear more credible because they have a more extreme movement to which they are compared (just as Farage's Brexit party benefits from UKIP's ravings). It's touching that Thunberg calls attention to the positive contributions that people on the autistic spectrum can make to society as well.
I agree with that. There's a good parallel with the history of women's suffrage. Without the detailed arguments and campaigning of the suffragists, the more extreme tactics of the suffragettes might have seemed pointless. However, without the publicity generated by the latter there probably would not have been the same impetus to actually make a change.
I've never heard of a quiet protest that effected real change. The protests of Dr. King were very much not quiet and unobtrusive affairs; they were designed to be inconvenient and in the way. Hence the tactic of having long lines of black protestors go up to a theater to ask admittance, get turned away, and go right back to the back of the line to repeat the process, slowing down everything for white theatergoers and forcing people to look at the problem in the face. Same goes for the protests of segregated restaurants.
Nonviolent doesn't mean quiet, it doesn't mean meek, and it doesn't mean it stays out of the way and tries its hardest not to distract anybody. The whole point of a protest is to call attention to something, and the way you do it is by getting in the way.
Grassroots political change is always obtrusive and inconvenient.
Grassroots political change is always obtrusive and inconvenient.
And more effective than touting, "Majority, so we get to shove our legislation down your throat whether you like it or not!" (especially with the slight majorities we oscillate between in this country)
It takes longer though, which is why it's so much sexier to try to sway that extra 5% - 10% of swing voters every two years...
Grassroots political change is always obtrusive and inconvenient.
And more effective than touting, "Majority, so we get to shove our legislation down your throat whether you like it or not!" (especially with the slight majorities we oscillate between in this country)
It takes longer though, which is why it's so much sexier to try to sway that extra 5% - 10% of swing voters every two years...
The problem is one party, the Republicans, operates in completely bad faith. When Obama was President, they held up everything even their own bills. They tanked judges they said they'd approve. Mitch McConnell filibustered his own bill because he didn't want to pass anything under Obama. Republicans operate in bad faith. Democrats don't do this, they want the government to work while Republicans want to tank it an turn it over to private interests. Republicans hate America and Democracy.
When they are in charge, Republicans refuse to do anything other than using their slight majority to push unpopular, punishing, pro-corporate welfare policies such as the tax cuts for the rich. Remember that the Republican "majority" represented millions of fewer people than the Democratic minority. They are using their 5-4 Supreme Court edge to screw us all even now.
Grassroots political change is always obtrusive and inconvenient.
And more effective than touting, "Majority, so we get to shove our legislation down your throat whether you like it or not!" (especially with the slight majorities we oscillate between in this country)
It takes longer though, which is why it's so much sexier to try to sway that extra 5% - 10% of swing voters every two years...
The problem is one party, the Republicans, operates in completely bad faith. When Obama was President, they held up everything even their own bills. They tanked judges they said they'd approve. Mitch McConnell filibustered his own bill because he didn't want to pass anything under Obama. Republicans operate in bad faith. Democrats don't do this, they want the government to work while Republicans want to tank it an turn it over to private interests. Republicans hate America and Democracy.
When they are in charge, Republicans refuse to do anything other than using their slight majority to push unpopular, punishing, pro-corporate welfare policies such as the tax cuts for the rich. Remember that the Republican "majority" represented millions of fewer people than the Democratic minority. They are using their 5-4 Supreme Court edge to screw us all even now.
Of course those changes will be transitory as soon as they lose power. Sticking your finger in the hole of progress only works for so long. I'd rather conservatives slow the rate of change down than completely obstruct progress. Maybe I'm just not a 'true' conservative...
Selecting Clinton may go down in history as one of the worst mistakes by any political party in my lifetime. Democrats need to own that and rectify that error. Stop whining and pick somebody better next time.
?
Whereas Republicans selecting Trump is... what? Not a mistake? Smart, judged after the fact, because he won? Your statement is genius when considered in hindsight... but what can you tell us from a forward-looking perspective?
I hated Hillary Clinton the 'Chosen One'. That's the only reason I voted for Trump. It was the closest my one vote ever came to counting (due to living in Michigan), but I didn't elect him...
If people are upset about that judge letting an undocumented immigrant leave out the back door of a courthouse, I'm wondering what they'll think about a guy who was planning to ASSASSINATE multiple national Democratic leaders being released pending trial:
If people are upset about that judge letting an undocumented immigrant leave out the back door of a courthouse, I'm wondering what they'll think about a guy who was planning to ASSASSINATE multiple national Democratic leaders being released pending trial:
If people are upset about that judge letting an undocumented immigrant leave out the back door of a courthouse, I'm wondering what they'll think about a guy who was planning to ASSASSINATE multiple national Democratic leaders being released pending trial:
Looks like they'll have to charge him with conspiracy or something to keep him locked up pre-trial. That's a mistake by the prosecutors...
There was a teenager who spent over a year at Riker's Island without trial for stealing a backpack, but Mr. I'm amassing an arsenal of weapons to kill left-wing politicians is gonna be out on the streets. And this is following up on the story @smeagolheart posted the other day about the elected Representative in Washington who was coordinating with fringe groups to plan attacks on left-wing protesters. And I looked into that one more in last few days. The people in the chat he was involved in were threatening to track down certain people at their children's daycare and were threatening to string a certain woman up by her nipple rings. It was psychotic. And then this elected official chimes in and basically says "what information can I provide about these people to help you out". I realize it is a sub-set of a sub-set of a minority, but there is absolutely a certain strain on the fringes of right-wing politics that literally wants to KILL liberals.
If people are upset about that judge letting an undocumented immigrant leave out the back door of a courthouse, I'm wondering what they'll think about a guy who was planning to ASSASSINATE multiple national Democratic leaders being released pending trial:
Looks like they'll have to charge him with conspiracy or something to keep him locked up pre-trial. That's a mistake by the prosecutors...
There was a teenager who spent over a year at Riker's Island without trial for stealing a backpack, but Mr. I'm amassing an arsenal of weapons to kill left-wing politicians is gonna be out on the streets. And this is following up on the story @smeagolheart posted the other day about the elected Representative in Washington who was coordinating with fringe groups to plan attacks on left-wing protesters. And I looked into that one more in last few days. The people in the chat he was involved in were threatening to track down certain people at their children's daycare and were threatening to string a certain woman up by her nipple rings. It was psychotic. And then this elected official chimes in and basically says "what information can I provide about these people to help you out". I realize it is a sub-set of a sub-set of a minority, but there is absolutely a certain strain on the fringes of right-wing politics that literally wants to KILL liberals.
Ok. So maybe they should be charged with something more sinister than 'possession' then.
If people are upset about that judge letting an undocumented immigrant leave out the back door of a courthouse, I'm wondering what they'll think about a guy who was planning to ASSASSINATE multiple national Democratic leaders being released pending trial:
Looks like they'll have to charge him with conspiracy or something to keep him locked up pre-trial. That's a mistake by the prosecutors...
There was a teenager who spent over a year at Riker's Island without trial for stealing a backpack, but Mr. I'm amassing an arsenal of weapons to kill left-wing politicians is gonna be out on the streets. And this is following up on the story @smeagolheart posted the other day about the elected Representative in Washington who was coordinating with fringe groups to plan attacks on left-wing protesters. And I looked into that one more in last few days. The people in the chat he was involved in were threatening to track down certain people at their children's daycare and were threatening to string a certain woman up by her nipple rings. It was psychotic. And then this elected official chimes in and basically says "what information can I provide about these people to help you out". I realize it is a sub-set of a sub-set of a minority, but there is absolutely a certain strain on the fringes of right-wing politics that literally wants to KILL liberals.
Ok. So maybe they should be charged with something more sinister than 'possession' then.
How about we lock up these folks too while we're at it...
Sorry. Not one of those people were stockpiling guns and creating a hit list to go after. The kinda good news is that if he is released, police will have a very keen eye on him.
Also, a lot of them are overblown examples. Di Nero said he’d just punch him in the face that really isn’t a death threat, just a violent one that Trump has uttered at many of his own rallies.
Snoop Dog’s is literally a fake gun but o bajesus the message it is sending our youth! Another one is literally the play Julius Caesar.
If people are upset about that judge letting an undocumented immigrant leave out the back door of a courthouse, I'm wondering what they'll think about a guy who was planning to ASSASSINATE multiple national Democratic leaders being released pending trial:
Looks like they'll have to charge him with conspiracy or something to keep him locked up pre-trial. That's a mistake by the prosecutors...
There was a teenager who spent over a year at Riker's Island without trial for stealing a backpack, but Mr. I'm amassing an arsenal of weapons to kill left-wing politicians is gonna be out on the streets. And this is following up on the story @smeagolheart posted the other day about the elected Representative in Washington who was coordinating with fringe groups to plan attacks on left-wing protesters. And I looked into that one more in last few days. The people in the chat he was involved in were threatening to track down certain people at their children's daycare and were threatening to string a certain woman up by her nipple rings. It was psychotic. And then this elected official chimes in and basically says "what information can I provide about these people to help you out". I realize it is a sub-set of a sub-set of a minority, but there is absolutely a certain strain on the fringes of right-wing politics that literally wants to KILL liberals.
Ok. So maybe they should be charged with something more sinister than 'possession' then.
How about we lock up these folks too while we're at it...
Sorry. Not one of those people were stockpiling guns and creating a hit list to go after. The kinda good news is that if he is released, police will have a very keen eye on him.
Also, a lot of them are overblown examples. Di Nero said he’d just punch him in the face that really isn’t a death threat, just a violent one that Trump has uttered at many of his own rallies.
Snoop Dog’s is literally a fake gun but o bajesus the message it is sending our youth! Another one is literally the play Julius Caesar.
This is just stuff I found with a quick search. I'm sure I could come up with much more if I cared to. Liberals aren't saints.
That article is an editorial (opinion piece) with no author noted that I could see. Liberals aren't saints but more often than not are decent people and Republicans are not all fascists but a lot of them are. There's examples of cherry picked one or two protestors against GW Bush. That's not the same as the leader of the party calling people invaders and saying ignorant stuff like Democrats are pro-crime.
----from the article---
today's lack of civility "should surprise exactly no one in a time when the president uses the imagery of invaders and infestation to describe immigrants."
Same language as Hitler used to describe Jews and gypsies during his rise to power in a democratic government.
That article is an editorial (opinion piece) with no author noted that I could see. Liberals aren't saints but more often than not are decent people and Republicans are not all fascists but a lot of them are. There's examples of cherry picked one or two protestors against GW Bush. That's not the same as the leader of the party calling people invaders and saying ignorant stuff like Democrats are pro-crime.
----from the article---
today's lack of civility "should surprise exactly no one in a time when the president uses the imagery of invaders and infestation to describe immigrants."
Same language as Hitler used to describe Jews and gypsies during his rise to power in a democratic government.
Hmmm... You're right, those articles, while interesting, aren't very useful when there aren't any names associated with them. Investors Business Daily sounded like a good non-political web-site. That'll teach me to do a quick search in this day and age...
Trying not to break out laughing at the thought of these two absolutely horrible human beings at each other's throats for control of this reprehensible organization. The first step to getting anything done on guns was defeating the NRA and turning them into a pariah, and on THAT front, the Parkland students absolutely won the battle. Now look at it. Infiltrated by Russian agents and it's leaders at war with each other, most likely because their fundraising and money has dried up:
If the NRA went back to its roots and focused more on gun safety and training it, it’d improve its image a lot more.
It’s leadership has skewered too far right just because of the perceived threat that The Democratic Party wants to take away their guns and rights. The fear mongering needs to stop to give more civil members their voice back and take politics not completely out of it, but put it more on the back burner.
The NRA hasn't been much about gun safety or training for a long time, at least not above the rank and file. The leadership is mostly just looking out for arms manufacturers and trying to make money by using scare tactics on their own membership to extract political donations.
These days, it's just another corporate super-PAC.
I wish that the Izaak Walton League or some similar organization had a bigger place in American political life to give responsible gun owners a positive alternative to the NRA.
So Liberals don't want to take people's guns away? I've never really had it explained to me how gun violence can be reduced 'without' taking guns away from people. Buybacks?
So Liberals don't want to take people's guns away? I've never really had it explained to me how gun violence can be reduced 'without' taking guns away from people. Buybacks?
Well, we’ll start with this: define an arm that is labeled in the second amendment.
Would a nuclear missile be considered an arm a citizen of the united state would have the right to own under the second amendment?
That may sound extreme, but it is just as extreme as Liberals wanting to take away everyone’s gun. Obviously, or I should say hopefully, a person doesn’t think the average person shouldn’t own a nuke. But slowly go down the line starting there and figure out a good compromise what a person can legally own.
Ownership can be grandfathered in if say the population of the United States say owning a missile launcher should be a no-no but you personally already have one. That grandfather clause can even be estate established so a person can pass on their collection of fire arms to an heir if desired without worry the state will go after them after they have passed. The state could also offer buyback programs for any weapons - no questions asked just to get them off the streets.
Once the amendment is actually defined and not some vague statement that was meant to replace an actual standing army at the time of conception, I think people would be able to move forward and away from “there here for my guns!”
But pulling out of an international trade agreement because it infringes on a person’s second amendment is b.s. It was because US arms dealers couldn’t sell to places like Saudi.
So Liberals don't want to take people's guns away? I've never really had it explained to me how gun violence can be reduced 'without' taking guns away from people. Buybacks?
Well, we’ll start with this: define an arm that is labeled in the second amendment.
Would a nuclear missile be considered an arm a citizen of the united state would have the right to own under the second amendment?
That may sound extreme, but it is just as extreme as Liberals wanting to take away everyone’s gun. Obviously, or I should say hopefully, a person doesn’t think the average person shouldn’t own a nuke. But slowly go down the line starting there and figure out a good compromise what a person can legally own.
Ownership can be grandfathered in if say the population of the United States say owning a missile launcher should be a no-no but you personally already have one. That grandfather clause can even be estate established so a person can pass on their collection of fire arms to an heir if desired without worry the state will go after them after they have passed. The state could also offer buyback programs for any weapons - no questions asked just to get them off the streets.
Once the amendment is actually defined and not some vague statement that was meant to replace an actual standing army at the time of conception, I think people would be able to move forward and away from “there here for my guns!”
But pulling out of an international trade agreement because it infringes on a person’s second amendment is b.s. It was because US arms dealers couldn’t sell to places like Saudi.
So how does the government know who has guns and who doesn't?
So Liberals don't want to take people's guns away? I've never really had it explained to me how gun violence can be reduced 'without' taking guns away from people. Buybacks?
As people are fond of touting, there's 500 million guns owned by something like 120 million people.
Say there's only about 50k shooting incidents per year (I know it's at least 35k, the number of dead every year), or 1 for every 2400 gun owners.
First, real true gun registration. Require mandatory updates that "I sold my gun to X" to match "I bought a gun from Y". Also yearly recertifying that they have the guns. Imprison people who are found with unregistered guns or misregistered guns. Arrest the people who had the guns as well as the people possessing the gun unless a damn good reason like they were stolen in a burglary or fraud in the exchange.
That is just to build a picture of who has guns where. By all reports, right now it's the goddamned Wild West with loopholes to avoid registration and a hamstrung registration system that, by design, can't effectively work in time to stop purchases that should not be carried through.
THEN start restricting it to people who should not have guns. Cross reference with domestic abusers, mentally ill, terrorist watchlists, etc. Then start kicking in doors and confiscating with due process the people who should not be allowed guns.
The flipside, having gun licenses that says you are NOT a domestic abuser, mentally ill, a suspected terrorist, etc.; and that it is peachy that you can acquire a gun. Akin to a driver's license, but updated more frequently (1-2 years compared to 6).
I can't decide if this or Kemp's antics in the waning days of the Georgia governor's race is the MOST despicable non-Trump thing done by the GOP in the last 365 days, but since Trump is also involved in this one by way of spreading it to a larger audience. It is one thing to lie. It is quite another to concoct things out of thin air and then pretend they are real when the people doing so know FULL WELL what they are selling is 110% bullshit. Forget making progress. At this point it's all liberals can do to keep the GOP from revoking the right to vote from anyone they choose to by engaging in make-believe and selling it to the public as "fraud".
The ability to re-sell guns with no real restrictions, no tracking, and no accountability just makes it so much easier for criminals to get their hands on a weapon without the authorities knowing. Requiring gun owners to actually hold on to their own guns instead of selling them off to random strangers is an absolute prerequisite for making background checks effective. You can forbid a gun shop from selling a handgun to a convicted criminal, but you also need to forbid gun owners from selling handguns to convicted criminals under the table, if you really want to limit criminals' access to lethal weapons. Yet we don't even do the former in all cases, much less the latter.
In our system, a lot of criminals don't need to find sneaky ways to get their hands on a weapon. We do essentially nothing to stop them, or even slow them down.
We do need registration to track guns. You need to actually know where guns are going in order to find out how to keep them away from crooks. Opposing a database of gun ownership just means you're keeping the police in the dark.
I would actually go further and restrict handguns to (1) police officers and (2) those who were able to pass a training program that would ensure they had the same accuracy, self-control under pressure, and ability to think clearly in dangerous situations that a police officer would need to safely use a gun (if you're not a police officer and you don't have any of their skills, you're not equipped to do their job). Handguns are designed to hunt no animal except for human beings, and their small size makes them the absolute perfect weapon for any violent criminal, because they can be so easily hidden.
Requiring weapons manufacturers to only manufacture nonlethal rubber bullets (I'd make an exception for police officers and hunting guns) instead of lead ones would also do a lot to reduce fatalities, particularly suicide. A rubber bullet keeps you down for 10 seconds; a lead bullet keeps you down for the rest of your life. Either one is more than enough time to get away from an attacker, but the former will make sure you don't die just because a mugger decides he doesn't like your face. Guns last a long time, but ammunition is very temporary, and even if a handgun stays on the black market for a long time, it won't be as deadly if the supply of lead bullets is finite.
A gun buyback program and ammunition buyback program would be expensive but worth it. If criminals have fewer guns to get their hands on, there are going to be fewer criminals with guns in their hands.
The reason why we don't any of these simple regulations, much less all of them, is because gun manufacturers currently have the right to buy politicians, and they know very well that they make just as much money selling a gun to a violent criminal as they do to a law-abiding citizen. They're not willing to refuse service to a paying customer just because that customer happens to be a gangster.
The number one pick in the NFL draft was a black man. Trump congratulated the number two pick Nick Bosa, a white guy, who has said former 49ers player Colin Kaepernick a “clown.” Bosa had also “liked” many Instagram posts with racist and homophobic slurs.
Why do that? Why congratulate the number 2 pick but not the number one pick? Hmm what can it mean? Is there a grey area here or are things black and white? In any case, Trump seems to consider Bosa a "Conservative". Is being racist what it means to be a Conservative these days?
Comments
1. What do you think "vigilante" means?
2. She allegedly let a guy accused of drug possession escape. How did you get from there to anyone potentially losing their life?
I think that having both forms of protest deployed simultaneously can be quite powerful, something like the Indian independence movement had both strands for example. The moderate protesters appear more credible because they have a more extreme movement to which they are compared (just as Farage's Brexit party benefits from UKIP's ravings). It's touching that Thunberg calls attention to the positive contributions that people on the autistic spectrum can make to society as well.
I can't help but think Barr has decided to cover up crimes involving the GOP and the NRA and Russia by silencing the problem and sending her back to Russia. I strongly suspect that a lot of the redacted stuff in the Mueller report detailed actions by her and the GOP and the NRA. But now she has served her purpose which was allowing Barr to redact embarrassing information and crimes involving the GOP. Large portions of the report were redacted due to ongoing criminal matters like this that he can just end now. Now she's gotta go before anyone can find out the extent of the crimes of the GOP.
I agree with that. There's a good parallel with the history of women's suffrage. Without the detailed arguments and campaigning of the suffragists, the more extreme tactics of the suffragettes might have seemed pointless. However, without the publicity generated by the latter there probably would not have been the same impetus to actually make a change.
Nonviolent doesn't mean quiet, it doesn't mean meek, and it doesn't mean it stays out of the way and tries its hardest not to distract anybody. The whole point of a protest is to call attention to something, and the way you do it is by getting in the way.
Grassroots political change is always obtrusive and inconvenient.
And more effective than touting, "Majority, so we get to shove our legislation down your throat whether you like it or not!" (especially with the slight majorities we oscillate between in this country)
It takes longer though, which is why it's so much sexier to try to sway that extra 5% - 10% of swing voters every two years...
The problem is one party, the Republicans, operates in completely bad faith. When Obama was President, they held up everything even their own bills. They tanked judges they said they'd approve. Mitch McConnell filibustered his own bill because he didn't want to pass anything under Obama. Republicans operate in bad faith. Democrats don't do this, they want the government to work while Republicans want to tank it an turn it over to private interests. Republicans hate America and Democracy.
When they are in charge, Republicans refuse to do anything other than using their slight majority to push unpopular, punishing, pro-corporate welfare policies such as the tax cuts for the rich. Remember that the Republican "majority" represented millions of fewer people than the Democratic minority. They are using their 5-4 Supreme Court edge to screw us all even now.
Of course those changes will be transitory as soon as they lose power. Sticking your finger in the hole of progress only works for so long. I'd rather conservatives slow the rate of change down than completely obstruct progress. Maybe I'm just not a 'true' conservative...
I hated Hillary Clinton the 'Chosen One'. That's the only reason I voted for Trump. It was the closest my one vote ever came to counting (due to living in Michigan), but I didn't elect him...
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/717286197/judge-is-open-to-releasing-man-prosecutors-have-called-domestic-terrorist
Looks like they'll have to charge him with conspiracy or something to keep him locked up pre-trial. That's a mistake by the prosecutors...
There was a teenager who spent over a year at Riker's Island without trial for stealing a backpack, but Mr. I'm amassing an arsenal of weapons to kill left-wing politicians is gonna be out on the streets. And this is following up on the story @smeagolheart posted the other day about the elected Representative in Washington who was coordinating with fringe groups to plan attacks on left-wing protesters. And I looked into that one more in last few days. The people in the chat he was involved in were threatening to track down certain people at their children's daycare and were threatening to string a certain woman up by her nipple rings. It was psychotic. And then this elected official chimes in and basically says "what information can I provide about these people to help you out". I realize it is a sub-set of a sub-set of a minority, but there is absolutely a certain strain on the fringes of right-wing politics that literally wants to KILL liberals.
Ok. So maybe they should be charged with something more sinister than 'possession' then.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thewrap.com/hollywood-stars-donald-trump-violent-death-kathy-griffin-snoop-dogg/amp/
How about we lock up these folks too while we're at it...
Sorry. Not one of those people were stockpiling guns and creating a hit list to go after. The kinda good news is that if he is released, police will have a very keen eye on him.
Also, a lot of them are overblown examples. Di Nero said he’d just punch him in the face that really isn’t a death threat, just a violent one that Trump has uttered at many of his own rallies.
Snoop Dog’s is literally a fake gun but o bajesus the message it is sending our youth! Another one is literally the play Julius Caesar.
This is just stuff I found with a quick search. I'm sure I could come up with much more if I cared to. Liberals aren't saints.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-hatred-left-incivility/
----from the article---
today's lack of civility "should surprise exactly no one in a time when the president uses the imagery of invaders and infestation to describe immigrants."
Same language as Hitler used to describe Jews and gypsies during his rise to power in a democratic government.
Hmmm... You're right, those articles, while interesting, aren't very useful when there aren't any names associated with them. Investors Business Daily sounded like a good non-political web-site. That'll teach me to do a quick search in this day and age...
It’s leadership has skewered too far right just because of the perceived threat that The Democratic Party wants to take away their guns and rights. The fear mongering needs to stop to give more civil members their voice back and take politics not completely out of it, but put it more on the back burner.
These days, it's just another corporate super-PAC.
Well, we’ll start with this: define an arm that is labeled in the second amendment.
Would a nuclear missile be considered an arm a citizen of the united state would have the right to own under the second amendment?
That may sound extreme, but it is just as extreme as Liberals wanting to take away everyone’s gun. Obviously, or I should say hopefully, a person doesn’t think the average person shouldn’t own a nuke. But slowly go down the line starting there and figure out a good compromise what a person can legally own.
Ownership can be grandfathered in if say the population of the United States say owning a missile launcher should be a no-no but you personally already have one. That grandfather clause can even be estate established so a person can pass on their collection of fire arms to an heir if desired without worry the state will go after them after they have passed. The state could also offer buyback programs for any weapons - no questions asked just to get them off the streets.
Once the amendment is actually defined and not some vague statement that was meant to replace an actual standing army at the time of conception, I think people would be able to move forward and away from “there here for my guns!”
But pulling out of an international trade agreement because it infringes on a person’s second amendment is b.s. It was because US arms dealers couldn’t sell to places like Saudi.
So how does the government know who has guns and who doesn't?
As people are fond of touting, there's 500 million guns owned by something like 120 million people.
Say there's only about 50k shooting incidents per year (I know it's at least 35k, the number of dead every year), or 1 for every 2400 gun owners.
First, real true gun registration. Require mandatory updates that "I sold my gun to X" to match "I bought a gun from Y". Also yearly recertifying that they have the guns. Imprison people who are found with unregistered guns or misregistered guns. Arrest the people who had the guns as well as the people possessing the gun unless a damn good reason like they were stolen in a burglary or fraud in the exchange.
That is just to build a picture of who has guns where. By all reports, right now it's the goddamned Wild West with loopholes to avoid registration and a hamstrung registration system that, by design, can't effectively work in time to stop purchases that should not be carried through.
THEN start restricting it to people who should not have guns. Cross reference with domestic abusers, mentally ill, terrorist watchlists, etc. Then start kicking in doors and confiscating with due process the people who should not be allowed guns.
The flipside, having gun licenses that says you are NOT a domestic abuser, mentally ill, a suspected terrorist, etc.; and that it is peachy that you can acquire a gun. Akin to a driver's license, but updated more frequently (1-2 years compared to 6).
If you HAVE a license, then sure, buy whatever.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/texas-retracts-voter-fraud-claim-stops-purge.html
In our system, a lot of criminals don't need to find sneaky ways to get their hands on a weapon. We do essentially nothing to stop them, or even slow them down.
We do need registration to track guns. You need to actually know where guns are going in order to find out how to keep them away from crooks. Opposing a database of gun ownership just means you're keeping the police in the dark.
I would actually go further and restrict handguns to (1) police officers and (2) those who were able to pass a training program that would ensure they had the same accuracy, self-control under pressure, and ability to think clearly in dangerous situations that a police officer would need to safely use a gun (if you're not a police officer and you don't have any of their skills, you're not equipped to do their job). Handguns are designed to hunt no animal except for human beings, and their small size makes them the absolute perfect weapon for any violent criminal, because they can be so easily hidden.
Requiring weapons manufacturers to only manufacture nonlethal rubber bullets (I'd make an exception for police officers and hunting guns) instead of lead ones would also do a lot to reduce fatalities, particularly suicide. A rubber bullet keeps you down for 10 seconds; a lead bullet keeps you down for the rest of your life. Either one is more than enough time to get away from an attacker, but the former will make sure you don't die just because a mugger decides he doesn't like your face. Guns last a long time, but ammunition is very temporary, and even if a handgun stays on the black market for a long time, it won't be as deadly if the supply of lead bullets is finite.
A gun buyback program and ammunition buyback program would be expensive but worth it. If criminals have fewer guns to get their hands on, there are going to be fewer criminals with guns in their hands.
The reason why we don't any of these simple regulations, much less all of them, is because gun manufacturers currently have the right to buy politicians, and they know very well that they make just as much money selling a gun to a violent criminal as they do to a law-abiding citizen. They're not willing to refuse service to a paying customer just because that customer happens to be a gangster.
Why do that? Why congratulate the number 2 pick but not the number one pick? Hmm what can it mean? Is there a grey area here or are things black and white? In any case, Trump seems to consider Bosa a "Conservative". Is being racist what it means to be a Conservative these days?