@royalcrown89: @Frederick: @royalcrown89: @Frederick: @royalcrown89: @raphjd: What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity. If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole. I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign. If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence. When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them.   Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?" Frederick, I'm very sorry those situations happened to you. You're absolutely right, in those instances a gun would have escalated the situation and it's better to let authorities handle it. However, what if someone breaks into your home while you're in your kitchen cooking and they start shooting at you? Wouldn't you rather have a gun to shoot them with before they killed you? How else are you going to protect yourself? I could understand not wanting to escalate a situation, but what if it is already on that level and they've shot at you or have even shot you? That's an EXCELLENT scenario you pointed out.  Obviously the person who broke in has the upper hand in that they have the weapon and are quite prepared to use it..  What am I supposed to do?  Tell the person "Oh, would you be a doll and wait here while I go get my gun from the other room, make sure it is loaded, take the safety off, and come back to shoot you?"    I've heard of people that keep a loaded gun with the safety off in every drawer in the house.   Even in that case, is the person who broke in going to allow you to open a drawer and pull out a gun?   Far more likely is for a kid to find the gun and go out playing with it, and shoot themselves with it or cause some other mischief.. or a burglar come in without a gun.. open a drawer and find your gun.. and if you interrupted him he would use your gun to shoot YOU!   I really can't think of a scenario where a gun would be an effective DEFENSE.   I would suggest someone get a dog, or a recording of a dog, or an alarm system instead of a gun.  Again, I can't come up with a good reason to have a gun, I can come up with a LOT of bad reasons to have a gun. By the way, very few people know this.. but of all the police that get shot.. 25% of them get shot with their OWN weapon!   They are supposed to be highly trained and experts, etc.  Those are not very good odds!   Police are quite a bit like Barney Fife. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQBhUzEsO-Y Good point. I believe the laws in place can stop a ton of gun violence if they were actually enforced. The loopholes can be closed by Republicans passing careful legislation, so careful that Democrats can't exploit it. Other than that, I don't think much can be done without addressing the gun lobbyists and other special interests on both sides. Would it be right to do a buyback program to take legal, sane gun owners' guns? Also, you're absolutely right about the cops. There are many cop stories where they accidentally shot themselves and gave the description of black men who did it ;D In regards to cop shootings.. often not only are cops shot with their OWN weapons, but the cops get injured from the bullets fired by OTHER cops.  There have been recent cases where one cop shoots at a suspect through a window.. only to find out the suspect they just killed was another cop. Obama had 8 years to do something, anything about cops.. but did absolutely NOTHING!   No excuse for that.

@royalcrown89: @cteavin: @Frederick: … or to summarize.. the allegations of collusion are nothing but a nothing burger.  In fact, until Van Jones of CNN said this.. he was a big shot at CNN.. since then, they have muzzled him.    Van Jones called the collusion story a "Nothing Burger" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs But it's a nothing burger that people believe exists. Had Trump not made a big deal out of Obama's birth certificate, I'd be angry about the whole investigation. Seems to me he's getting payback. Also, the Republicans are getting a taste of obstruction aka payback. I'm hoping that when it's all over both sides can let it go and get to running the country. If it is a nothing burger once the investigation ends, it would be best for everyone to move on. I also believe if the president is successful with getting tax reform, the amount of extra stabilization it will bring to an already stabilizing market will overshadow anything the left even attempts to throw at him. It would truly change the direction of things. I'm heavily against major tax cuts for the wealthy, but I'll accept them if it means having a robust market that actually does create jobs and raises wages (would need to see immediate results of that). However, there needs to be a starting point with trust and only the president can lead on that front. No, it's a nothing burger until Mueller comes up with something.. and so far he has not. I'd like to see someone investigate CNN for giving Hillary the presidential debate questions.. and also investigate Hillary for not revealing that she got the questions for the debate before the debate.

@cteavin: I only get a little glimpse of what must be near round the clock coverage in the 24-hour news cycle of this. Me, I'm not a fan of people, mostly women, coming forward to say they were raped. If there's no proof it becomes he said, she said and the current cultural norm is to believe the victim. Also, there are (petty?) decades-old grievances coming to light. A good example of this is a woman who still holds a grudge that Ben Aflac (whom I despise as a person) grabbed her boob on TV. Let it go. Or, am I wrong? I wish they media would do more to distinguish incidences of sexual assault.    For instance, there is a  massive difference between someone using a crowbar to break into someone's home and hold a knife to their throat and rape them….  and someone coming onto a movie mogul to get a part in a movie - and when the mogul takes advantage of the situation by patting one's ass or making a suggestive remark, etc.  instead of just walking away or not having the encounter in the first place.  Since supposedly "everyone" knew that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted actresses, why would an actress ever allow themselves to be caught in a compromising position with him?    By the way, it was Harvey's brother BOB that finally exposed Harvey for being a monster.

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9959 If you wanna see.

@raphjd: Every day, Hillary's list of those who caused her to lose gets bigger. Sadly, the crazy bitch hasn't realized that she is main cause.   Hell, she believes she's the victim in all this and that she is totally innocent. OI, BITCH.   GET DOWN OFF THE CROSS, WINTER IS COMING AND I NEED THE FIRE WOOD. You nailed that one EXACTLY.. Hillary is making a martyr of herself.  She should win an academy award for being a drama queen.

@aadam101: Sick people are less likely to have the ability to pay.  Let's say little Charlie Gard was an American and he survived.  He will be sick his entire life and need lots of medical care.  Assuming ObamaCare is repealed the moment he turns 18 he will need to find his own insurance.  How will he afford it?  The poor kid will have spent 18 years fighting for his life only to die at age 18 because he doesn't have the ability to pay? That's silly….. Those are outlier cases, Aadam. I believe such people can be taken care of through Medicare/Medicaid, no? (You work in healthcare, so I'm asking.) Here in Japan, we all get a physical once a year – mandatory no matter your field. There's a fun word METABO which is a corruption of metabolism. If your waist is, gosh, I think it's 98cm or more you're considered overweight (aka METABO) and your company must pay more for that employee's health care. This is supposed to incentivize employers to make sure their employees take care of themselves. #TheMoreYouKnow Being that so much of the US is overweight it's not a bad idea to make people who don't meet certain criteria to pay more, kind of a alternative sugar-tax.

@Frederick: I expected the divisive attacks to END once the election was over, but if anything, they INTENSIFIED! Then let it go. Just because someone speaks to you in a way you don't like doesn't mean you have to respond in turn. You're a grown man. If you feel someone has disrespected you call them out respectfully – remind them that there is an actual flesh and blood human being on the other end of the screen -- or ignore the comment and be the better person.

@cteavin: @Frederick: It's not just that.. the POTUS was in the middle of an interview when he was interrupted by some idiot who played the "Retreat" recording.  That was no accident. Possibly, but that's speculation. One of my best friends from uni (now) believes in bigfoot. (sigh) We can mistake all kinds of things for causation and come to the wrong conclusions. Me? Just the facts. This kind of stuff is delicate and needs to stop. Some of the bigfoot stuff is non-native orangutans that have gotten into the wild.  They were someone's pet or escaped from a zoo. As for Trump, the media seem to be ignoring the story of the interrupted interview… so it was just one moonbat report that one of our resident moonbats is hanging onto like a dingle berry.  The rest of the media are making up some other fake news.

@sutieday: Donald Trump is to address the annual conference of an anti-LGBT group which has been classified as a hate group. The US president will become the first sitting president to address social conservative activists and elected officials at the Value Voters Summit in Washington DC on Friday. President Trump has addressed the event which is hosted by the Family Research Council three times in total and did so last year as the Republican presidential candidate. The Family Research Council opposes and actively lobbies against equal rights for LGBT persons. The conservative Christian group campaigns against same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, LGBT adoption, abortion, embryonic stell-cell research, pornography and divorce. I'll take a stab at this. The Southern Poverty Law Center (TSPLC) is the organization that labeled this a hate group. They've also denounced Maajid Nawaz (personal hero) and put him on a hate list for speaking up against Jihadism, himself a former Jihadist, and in favor of a more moderate Islam. TSPLC is also being sued by several different individuals and organizations for these kinds of lists which label individuals and groups racist, sexist, Islamaphobic, etc. So maybe to be less inflammatory we could be discussing why Trump chose to speak at an uber-Christian organization. Well, they are American. They represent a voice in the United States. That voice is one under a larger Christian tent. Personally, I don't care if he goes. I think we as gay individuals would be wise to get a seat at the table with Trump rather than to sit on the sidelines in pink hats pissing him, and his administration, off. (I'm radical like that.)

@royalcrown89: @cteavin: @royalcrown89: It's impossible to focus on getting rid of military grade assault weapons because the NRA controls Republicans and Democrats are split between wanting to ban all guns and wanting to create registries as if we're in a socialist country or something; maybe it truly is the cost of freedom. Making new laws is somewhat pointless because the laws on the books are not being properly enforced already. Seems to me the solution is to get the lobbyists out of Washington and do away with that ruling from the Supreme Court that Corporations are People. These would be longterm goals and I don't think American people have the attention span to carry them through, so you might be right: Having guns readily available might be the cost of this version of freedom (there's more than one). The odd thing to me about present-day America is that there are more restrictions in getting a gym membership and buying medicine in bulk than voting and purchasing a gun. How did that happen? We got here by years and years of both sides not wanting to deal with the problem or finding a way together to make it worse. Neither side seems to want to get rid of lobbyists and other special interests, and that ruling by the Supreme Court is heavily supported by the Republican party who could easily pass legislation to say corporations are not people but refuse to at this time. Remember, it was a 5-4 decision of the more right-leaning justices against the more left-leaning justices that decided corporations are people so in that light one side was the problem. However, overall, we got here because of both sides. Uh.. that is the definition of a corporation.  Having a corporation limits the liability of specific people - and allows a company to continue after the executives die, retire, resign, etc.  There is a downside also.. in that the executives in charge get taxed as a corporation, and again as individuals.  If the business was not a corporation - they would only get hit with with a corporate tax. Also, you mentioned that the Supreme Court is packed with republicans.  Well, whose fault is that?  In the past 24 years.. we had 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama.  It's going to get much more republican because the moonbats were so sure that Hillary was going to win, that the senile moonbats such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not retire during Obama so they could find another moonbat to replace them.  There are 3 moonbat justices that are so old and senile that they won't last the 4 or 8 years of Trump.

@cteavin: @aadam101: I would rather eat Hillary's snatch then get anywhere near a naked Trump. OMG, I just realized what could actually force me into committing suicide. If those were my two choices, I'd just leave this world permanently. :blownose: That reminds me of the question I have asked moonbats many times, but never gotten an answer.  If not Trump.. who?  They typically reply "ANYBODY!" without specifying anyone.  It's funny that even though they only had two choices - Trump or Hillary - none of them have the guts to say that they would prefer Hillary.  I did hear one mentally disturbed bitch democratic strategist say yesterday that she wishes Obama was president - which is ironic - because Obama has already completed 2 terms and can never be president again.  Oprah can't be president because the Russians have nude photos of her when she was 350 pounds having sex with Gayle King - and they could blackmail her.