The adventures of President Donald Gump

[Jara 1,153]

Trump. What a loser. What a liar. "Nothing to do with guns and my supporters in the NRA - all to do with mental health." Nothing to do with laws that say a crazy can just walk into a shop and buy a machine gun.

 

It's got a lot to do with mental health all right - the mental health of the lunatic in the White House and his alt-right friends.

[daisycutter 29,339]

no doubt gun sales have just risen in the us as a consequence

[Ethan Tremblay 30,030]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/15/news/companies/us-gun-sales-decline/index.html

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 16/02/2018 at 10:12 PM, Earl Hood said:

Huh? Gun control is a Democrate issue then? You never cease to amaze Wrecker! 

Obama was a lame duck president but i will never understand how he couldn't bring in gun control.

just like I will never understand how Gillard couldn't bring in same sex marriage.

 

[Jara 1,153]

I think it was because he didn't control Congress, which is controlled by the NRA and its Republican bumboys.

Re Gillard, maybe it was one of those issues - like Howard and gun control - which could only ever be brought in by the party normally seen as a fellow traveller. Look at Penny Wong on marriage equality - I've seen her lambasted as a hypocrite by right-wing shock-jocks for not pushing it while Labor were in government. I suspect it was always important to her - but not so important that she was willing to sacrifice government for it.

Also, some issues are just slow burners - eventually, their time comes. Society develops, attitudes change. I don't think I'd ever even thought about marriage equality until - what? maybe the last ten years? - but as it gained traction, I began to see that it was a terrific idea. We've got two gay couples among our circle of friends, and it was wonderful to see and share their happiness.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,030]

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Obama was a lame duck president but i will never understand how he couldn't bring in gun control.

just like I will never understand how Gillard couldn't bring in same sex marriage.

 

There were more mass shootings (and more deaths) and mass murders (where guns were used) under Obama than there was under the four previous Presidents. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[nutbean 8,838]

On 16/02/2018 at 9:30 PM, Wrecker45 said:

Haha, ok so did the democrats pay for a dossier on Trump? Fact check - 1 from 1. Now dodge it knowing the facts lie with what I said or tell me where I am wrong.

 

You said that Obama paid for the false claims. You are wrong. What else you got ?

[nutbean 8,838]

13 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Obama was a lame duck president but i will never understand how he couldn't bring in gun control.

just like I will never understand how Gillard couldn't bring in same sex marriage.

 

Agree 100%.

You have a complete lack of understand.....( tongue firmly in cheek)

Edited February 18, 2018 by nutbean

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Trump is an idiot.

Repealed Obama's law that would have made it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns.

Fact check

Then he has the audacity to blame shooting on mental illness.

 

As for Obama's 'lack of action' on gun laws, the Democrats had control of Congress from 2009-2011. This was the window for action, and from memory that window was used to pass the ACA. After that, The GOP took control of Congress, making meaningful changes to gun control legislation extremely difficult. Even during that window in 2009-2011, the Democrats had fewer than 60 seats in the Senate - which is generally what is required to avoid a filibuster. So any significant gun control legislation would have stalled at this point anyway.

Sandy Hook happened in 2012. So America's greatest impetus for improving their gun control laws took place when the GOP controlled Congress - obviously nothing was going to pass.

 

Make no mistake here, the GOP is the biggest impediment to meaningful reform in the USA on gun control. The NRA has donated millions to them in order to keep gun laws where they are:

https://www.absentdata.com/blog/nra-politician-donations/

 

[Jara 1,153]

12 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

There were more mass shootings (and more deaths) and mass murders (where guns were used) under Obama than there was under the four previous Presidents. 

What on earth are you trying to say, Ethan?

[Jara 1,153]

36 minutes ago, Choke said:

Trump is an idiot.

Repealed Obama's law that would have made it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns.

Fact check

Then he has the audacity to blame shooting on mental illness.

 

As for Obama's 'lack of action' on gun laws, the Democrats had control of Congress from 2009-2011. This was the window for action, and from memory that window was used to pass the ACA. After that, The GOP took control of Congress, making meaningful changes to gun control legislation extremely difficult. Even during that window in 2009-2011, the Democrats had fewer than 60 seats in the Senate - which is generally what is required to avoid a filibuster. So any significant gun control legislation would have stalled at this point anyway.

Sandy Hook happened in 2012. So America's greatest impetus for improving their gun control laws took place when the GOP controlled Congress - obviously nothing was going to pass.

 

Make no mistake here, the GOP is the biggest impediment to meaningful reform in the USA on gun control. The NRA has donated millions to them in order to keep gun laws where they are:

https://www.absentdata.com/blog/nra-politician-donations/

 

Terrific post, Choke.

 

Obama was constantly calling for greater gun control. Stalled by Republican hookers in the pay of the NRA.

 

The Fat Orangutan, by contrast, says it's nothing to do with gun laws, all about mental health. 

 

Crazy boy just wanders in to the corner shop,  buys a machine gun: 17 dead, most of them kids.  

[nutbean 8,838]

31 minutes ago, Jara said:

Terrific post, Choke.

 

Obama was constantly calling for greater gun control. Stalled by Republican hookers in the pay of the NRA.

 

The Fat Orangutan, by contrast, says it's nothing to do with gun laws, all about mental health. 

 

Crazy boy just wanders in to the corner shop,  buys a machine gun: 17 dead, most of them kids.  

For a bit of balance. Congress as whole have been sitting on their hands regarding gun control. Whilst there is more will for change on Democrat side of the house there have certainly been complacency as whole to make strong changes to the gun laws. 

Bottom line is a simple  - there is no need for semi automatic weapons to be available (in particular the AR-15). ( As far as I'm concerned you can ban the lot)

[daisycutter 29,339]

guys, give up on us gun mentality, it is not logical, cogent, coherent, consistent, intelligent, lucid, plausible, rational, sensible, wise, clear,  congruent, justifiable or sound. you may as well pizz into a howling sou-wester as try to make some intelligible understanding of it

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by daisycutter

[nutbean 8,838]

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

guys, give up on us gun mentality, it is not logical, cogent, coherent, consistent, intelligent, lucid, plausible, rational, sensible, wise, clear,  congruent, justifiable or sound. you may as well pizz into a howling sou-wester as try to make some intelligible understanding of it

 

correct.

[binman 41,992]

On 2/16/2018 at 10:30 PM, Wrecker45 said:

The unfortunate situation is, mental health or not, the Americans have a massive gun control problem and Islamic terrorism problem.

Wrecker, i'm not sure if it was intentional but this statement implies the two issues are comparable. Which of course is completely not the case. It is impossible to compare the two. 

A quick google threw up hundreds of articles that make this point, but this one sums up how absurd the comparison is:

 The reality is that an American is at least twice as likely to be shot dead by a toddler than killed by a terrorist.

America's gun control 'problem' is full scale out of control. The numbers are staggering. Staggering.

On the other hand it is hard to mount an argument they actually have a Islamic terrorism 'problem' at all let alone a 'massive problem'.  

This article, in the wake of the obscene Las Vegas massacre sums up things well, when it says;

The Las Vegas massacre is a symptom of a problem more serious than terrorism: the lack of effective gun controls in the U.S. As I have reported previously, between 1970 and 2007, a total of 3,292 people in the U.S. were killed by terrorists. Almost all those deaths occurred on a single day, 9/11/01. That averages out to fewer than 100 deaths from terrorism a year.

In contrast, more than 32,000 Americans are shot to death every year, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Of those, more than 11,000 people are murdered and almost 20,000 kill themselves. The U.S., which has more firearms per capita than any other nation, has rates of gun-related killings much higher than any other developed nation.

The irony is that at the heart of the gun control issue is the notion of freedom and not having the government control its citizens. And the completely out of of balance response in the USA (and here too for that matter) to terrorism has stripped US citizens of their rights, impacts on their freedom in any number of ways (eg intra country air travel) and most ironically of all has enabled the government to control its citizens in ways that 20 years ago would have been unthinkable (eg monitoring private conversations and email use, surveillance, right to detain etc etc). Go figure. 

Edited February 19, 2018 by binman

[hardtack 10,422]

21 hours ago, binman said:

In contrast, more than 32,000 Americans are shot to death every year,

Yes... and they were managing to kill more of their own at home than the estimated number of Iraqi deaths (both civilian and troops) that occurred in the war in Iraq over a similar period of time.  For example, from Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Various_estimates):

"A June 25, 2006, Los Angeles Times article, "War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000", reported that their estimate of violent deaths consisted "mostly of civilians" but probably also included security forces and insurgents. It added that, "Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since." Here is how the Times got its number: "The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from 'military clashes' and 'terrorist attacks' from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137. However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total well beyond 50,000. The figure also does not include deaths outside Baghdad in the first year of the invasion.""

[binman 41,992]

42 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Yes... and they were managing to kill more of their own at home than the estimated number of Iraqi deaths (both civilian and troops) that occurred in the war in Iraq over a similar period of time.  For example, from Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Various_estimates):

"A June 25, 2006, Los Angeles Times article, "War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000", reported that their estimate of violent deaths consisted "mostly of civilians" but probably also included security forces and insurgents. It added that, "Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since." Here is how the Times got its number: "The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from 'military clashes' and 'terrorist attacks' from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137. However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total well beyond 50,000. The figure also does not include deaths outside Baghdad in the first year of the invasion.""

For undeniably great country the number of gun related deaths is an extraordinary state of affairs that is some ways unparalleled in history .

And not only do their elected representatives, from both sides, do nothing, they ate enablers. . 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by binman

[nutbean 8,838]

1 hour ago, binman said:

For undeniably great country the number of gun related deaths is an extraordinary state of affairs that is some ways unparalleled in history .

And not only do their elected representatives, from both sides, do nothing, they ate enablers. . 

 

And three biggest arguments I hear for doing nothing is  "there are two many guns out in the public arena and people won't give them up so easily as we did in Australia and it is cultural in the States as opposed to Australia".

I actually agree with all 3 arguments but vehemently disagree that these seemingly insurmountable problems should stop tough measures on gun ownership. I think it will take "generations" to remove the entrenched problems of guns ownership and gun violence but  they just can't keep ignoring the problem and hope that things will get better. (they can and they will)

[dieter 3,325]

2 hours ago, binman said:

For undeniably great country the number of gun related deaths is an extraordinary state of affairs that is some ways unparalleled in history .

And not only do their elected representatives, from both sides, do nothing, they ate enablers. . 

 

I've promised myself I'm over getting into unwinnable bun fights on this site, but, what, pray tell, is your definition of greatness?

[dieter 3,325]

2 hours ago, hardtack said:

Yes... and they were managing to kill more of their own at home than the estimated number of Iraqi deaths (both civilian and troops) that occurred in the war in Iraq over a similar period of time.  For example, from Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Various_estimates):

"A June 25, 2006, Los Angeles Times article, "War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000", reported that their estimate of violent deaths consisted "mostly of civilians" but probably also included security forces and insurgents. It added that, "Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since." Here is how the Times got its number: "The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from 'military clashes' and 'terrorist attacks' from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137. However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total well beyond 50,000. The figure also does not include deaths outside Baghdad in the first year of the invasion.""

Those figures are a joke. The casualty rate in Iraq - mostly civilians - has been estimated to be way over a million.

www.truth-out.org/.../30164-report-shows-us-invasion-occupation-of-iraq-left-1-milli...

Edited February 20, 2018 by dieter

[hardtack 10,422]

28 minutes ago, dieter said:

Those figures are a joke. The casualty rate in Iraq - mostly civilians - has been estimated to be way over a million.

www.truth-out.org/.../30164-report-shows-us-invasion-occupation-of-iraq-left-1-milli...

Over what period are you saying there were in excess of a million deaths? My example covers a three year period, not the entire conflict.

[dieter 3,325]

59 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Over what period are you saying there were in excess of a million deaths? My example covers a three year period, not the entire conflict.

Since the invasion - which was based on lies and propaganda in -  2003. We won't mention the deaths caused by depleted uranium in the period after the so-called first Gulf war, or the death toll of children  - Madelaine Albright's infamous 'Just' casualties of the US imposed sanctions. Noam Chomsky once pointed out, and this was before the 2003 Invasion, or the ongoing invasion of Afghanistan, that the USA was involved in more wars in the 20th Century than the countries of the rest of the world combined.  Yes, the so-called 'great' country. 

[binman 41,992]

2 hours ago, dieter said:

I've promised myself I'm over getting into unwinnable bun fights on this site, but, what, pray tell, is your definition of greatness?

To be honest with an opening statement such as being 'over getting into unwinnable bun fights on this site' i don't see the point in bothering to give my definition of greatness, given you have made it clear that you will counter any points i make. So i won't bother.

Just accept that i think America is a great country and i'll accept you don't think it is. Done. 

 

[binman 41,992]

5 hours ago, binman said:

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by binman
no delete function - quoted instead of editing

[hardtack 10,422]

2 hours ago, dieter said:

Since the invasion - which was based on lies and propaganda in -  2003. We won't mention the deaths caused by depleted uranium in the period after the so-called first Gulf war, or the death toll of children  - Madelaine Albright's infamous 'Just' casualties of the US imposed sanctions. Noam Chomsky once pointed out, and this was before the 2003 Invasion, or the ongoing invasion of Afghanistan, that the USA was involved in more wars in the 20th Century than the countries of the rest of the world combined.  Yes, the so-called 'great' country. 

You’ll never hear me accusing the US of being a great country.  

Back to those figures, if you’re talking of a period starting in 2003 and continuing through to recent times, then in that period, the US would still have a gun related deaths figure that comes close to being 50%.  Not something to be proud of.